Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. AfD is not the forum to discuss revising an article. An article on an obviously notable television personality could not possibly merit deletion. Xoloz 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Jones Reynolds

NPOV. Has Sensational and slanted tone. Lacks fairness and a sympathetic tone. Has gender biased heteronormative statements about the subject's husband's sexuality. Relies on tabloid reports and has been flagged for lack of proper citation, resulting in lack of Original Research. Image used in article infringes on copyright law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prangel (talk • contribs)

Comment. I removed the speculation about her husband's sexuality. TruthbringerToronto 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is undeniable, and the proper procedure is to make bold edits, blank the entire page save her name if you need to. hateless 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Re-write but for god's sake keep! This article is going to be getting a lot of hits! ^juppiter talk #c 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surpie

Little used neologism. Might warrant a wiktionary entry; but it's hard to see how an occasionally used slang phrase for "someone who is into surplus" warrants an article. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe not neologism, but obscure slang still warrants a delete. SM247^{My Talk} 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per SM247's comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starionwolf (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable neologism or slang. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat talk 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written. No references. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You could put it on Undictionary, but it'll probably get prodded there as well. Black-Velvet 09:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. Consider transwiki to wiktionary IF it can be verified that it's widely used, which would, quite frankly, shock the pants right off me. WilyD 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please refer to WP:NOT. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A1 nonsense hoax.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cascio

Speedy Delete - A Russian mercenary named Steve? The American outlaw Cody beheads him with an English broadsword? Probable hoax. Nothing on google except wiki and wiki mirrors --Nobunaga24 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. The author's username? CommanderCody23. Not a speedy candidate though (unfortunately) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense hoax, so tagged - one of the characters mentioned is "Sivad Samoht", which is "Thomas Davis" spelled backwards. NawlinWiki 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Volkswagen Golf. Herostratus 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Rabbit GTI

Wikipedia is not the place for an essay on you favorite type of Volkswagen Golf -- Koffieyahoo 00:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(s)Merge and redirect per WP:DEL. hateless 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per hateless -- Librarianofages 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Volkswagen Golf. --Coredesat talk 04:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Librarianofages. Black-Velvet 09:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per hateless. Could so with significant re-write during the merge. As it stands it's a drooling fan-letter. Cain Mosni 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - no context/content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greendale Construction Limited

non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. Originally prodded [1], but prod tag was removed by author who gave the following reasoning: "I object to the deletion because Wikipedia is constantly growing, making room for new articles etc. Look at pointless ones like Bubbles (video game) which has no information. Think about it." I have taken the author's advice and thought about it, but it still doesn't appear notable to me. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm usually inclusionary, but this reads like advertising -- Librarianofages 02:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, pure spam. Pascal.Tesson 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the possible advertisment. --Starionwolf 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:CORP. ~Chris (talk/e@) 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert any notable qualities; nor do any seem to be apparent under WP:CORP. I'd hate to call it spam or even an ad, really - they don't go out of the way to praise the company and it seems to be quite clinical and factual. They also fail his own yardstick, the "bubbles (video game) test" for measuring content: bubbles has 559 words, Greendale Ltd has 63. Kuru ^talk 04:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still reads like an advertisement for non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. The resulting redirect has been speedily deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, Phrase already in Sneakers article. Avi 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Secrets

Non-notable phrase from a movie. This could easily be covered in one sentence in the Sneakers article. No point to transwiki this to Wiktionary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Sneakers (film) article --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- Librarianofages 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Starionwolf 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sneakers (film). --Coredesat talk 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sneakers (film). The one line of content is already covered, almost verbatium, in the middle of the plot section - no need to merge. Might as well keep the redirect around since it was a catchphrase associated with the movie at the time. Kuru ^talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Too little information to be worth the time merging. Black-Velvet 08:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Black Velvet. JIP | Talk 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Do Not Merge, Do Not Redirect. There's no evidence at all that this phrase is famous or in wide usage as the article claims. So no need for redirect. The phrase is already in the movie article. So no need for merge. It's not even a dicdef. Why not save the unsung and weary-for-home admin who closes this vote some time and effort? Bwithh 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap, a redirect at the very least could hardly hurt WP. Redirects also have the bonus effect of deterring future re-creation of unnecessary articles, saving us all time here! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well a redirect as opposed to a delete would mean one of us non-janitorial types could close this out when the time is upon us, and the road weary admin could already be home... :) Of course there's not really any way to prove wide usage in this case, but hey, how many movie catch phrases have their own website? No real strong feelings on this one, other than the article can't stand on its own; redirect or delete is all good. Kuru ^talk 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure the reason for this article. I think the line was sampled by a band named DisNet, but I no longer have the CD to check. Шизомби 03:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. - CNichols 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that of the 154,000 hits for "Too many secrets", about 700 also mention "sneakers". This is a common phrase, which should perhaps just be deleted rather than have confusion by redirect. —Centrx→talk • 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tailgaters for Justice

NN group, possible vanity Desertsky85450 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zero Google hits outside of WP [2]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like vanity. -- Librarianofages 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan AdamBiswanger1 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan --Starionwolf 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, miserably fails WP:ORG, WP:VAIN issues. --Coredesat talk 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems odd that a lobbying group with several national offices would come up zero in any online search. Without some verification, I'm not convinced this isn't something made up in a pub one day. Kuru ^talk 04:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather NPOV; doesn't cite its sources. Black-Velvet 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn group, WP:NOT a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I'm an enemy of the working man. Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So be it. No more Schlitz for you. Kuru ^talk 21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Huw Evans

prod posted, then removed, then replaced (Which it shouldn't be). Given that this page is controversial, and that the subject is of questionable notability, AfD is the place to resolve it. EngineerScotty 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been vandalized a bit since it's creation; however it does look like a vanity page about a non-notable college professor. Searches on scholar.google, google, and Citeseer; could find no references to any papers by Evans. Hence, delete. --EngineerScotty 22:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prod was put back due to the fact that the person removing it was the person the article was about, or so it would seem. The person resorted to personal attacks, so the prod was restored. 69.145.123.171 ^Hello! Friday, June 23, 2006, 01:32 (UTC)
May I sugest that those looking for Evans should either look harder, I myself have found several references, or simply get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.136.222 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: Add them to the article, then. If notability can be established, I'll gladly change my vote to keep. --EngineerScotty 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unless notability can be verified using reliable sources. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tag and keep for organic expansion, article does claim notability and from the face of it, this article only needs to be expanded! -- Librarianofages 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unacceptable vanity. The creator of the article is User:Mathsmadrob who is or claims to be Robert Huw Evans. Pascal.Tesson 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just because he created the article himself doesn't meant it is un-acceptable.. his writings have been cited over 300 times in other acadmemic works and he does in fact appear to be a real professor. -- Librarianofages 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, please share the information you found about him with us, when you get an opportunity. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The easiest rule of thumb to apply on WP:AFD is that if someone writes an article about themselves, their band or their website, that's a fabulous reason to delete it. If its worthy of an entry, someone else will make it. WilyD 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - well if he is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology with 300 papers then he is notable, although the writer has got it as MTI.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sorry, you may of mis-understood, not 300 articles, his articles have been used 300 times in reference in other peoples articles. -- Librarianofages 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment actually the WP:VAIN guidelines say "Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met, might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist." Note also that it is not uncommon for a researcher in mathematics to be cited 300 times in other peoples' articles over the course of his career. Note further that it is kind of odd that you cannot find a trace of his name on the MIT mathematics department page. [3] Pascal.Tesson 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bonus comment, User:Librarianofages, can you give a reference for the claim about these 300 citations? Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Scrub that, I didn't limit my search enough, appears to be a hoax article. Delete -- Librarianofages 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as utterly unverified at this point. If someone could back up any of the assertions in the article, or even point to any of his work, that would be great. Then we can talk about the professor test and all. Kuru ^talk 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete hoax? Massachusetts Technical Institute, that's not MIT is it? Google knows of no MTI. The article is *really* badly written, and the name Robert Huw Evans generates no googlehits beyond WP. Also, absence of any faculty web page makes "He is also extremely handsome" unverifyable. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, well, there used to be a Southeastern Massachusetts Technical Institute - it became a UMASS campus at some point. I also noticed several foreign references to MIT as Massachusetts Technical Institute - sort of a bad translation. Not that any of that helps. Just thought I'd get some mileage out of the 20 minutes of google-fu looking for this guy. Kuru ^talk 05:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 'extremely handsome' part at the end of the article does it for me. Black-Velvet 09:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax to me. Dsreyn 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per vanity, no assertion of notability, biography, et al. WilyD 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. No listing with MIT, no Ghits. Fails Wp:BIO in any case. Not least in disappointment were unfulfilled claims by "keep" voters to provide supporting sources or references. Oh well. Tychocat 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. In this day and age, any technical institute in Massachussets (whether university, college, or anything else) is bound to maintain at least some web presence. The so-called "Massachusetts Technical Institute" has none. Unless someone can convince me of reality of this institution, and of reality and notability of this professor, I assume a hoax. Ekjon Lok 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ekjon Lok.--Joe Jklin (T C) 04:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ekjon Lok. --Metropolitan90 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ekjon Lok. Percy Snoodle 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sintuition

Non-notable; 634 hits on Google, most of which seem to be from MySpace, forums, etc. RidG Talk 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, 160 unique google hits; no listing at allmusic; having a myspace profile is telling, but the kicker is the statement in article that: "The band are currently unsigned, but have self released 2 CD's." NN. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleta as non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This band is notable, we do not need to delete, please allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 02:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Organic expansion is what happens to compost heaps when you pour stuff on them. Delete--Agamemnon2 11:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see any indication it meets WP:MUSIC. Fan1967 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They did play "Download", have been featured in an internationally published magazine with wide coverage & have played numerous times all over England (note that national tours are a condition for notability as per wp:music).. I'd say they are on the cusp of becoming irrefutably notable. As I said, pls allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To be one of 100 acts at a large festival isn't really that distinctive. Have they actually had a national tour, or have they played a bunch of clubs in different places? What exactly did the magazine say about them ("have been featured in" is awfully vague)? They may be on the cusp of being notable (many bands are), but I don't see anything to say they're there. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow for organic expansion." Fan1967 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment A "review" does not mean you have been "featured in" a magazine. On the cusp of greatness applies to all bands that ever picked up a guitar. I have no prejudice against recreation of this article when they become irrefutably notable, but we don't do crystal-balling/allow for natural expansion. --DaveG12345 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it admits to being unsigned and there is no indication of winning comps, selling CDs etc.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TedE. It might fail Wikipedia:Notability (music) --Starionwolf 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band essentially declares itself non-notable. --Coredesat talk 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Fuhghettaboutit. --DaveG12345 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's ugly, and it smells. Black-Velvet 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No label, not notable. --Joelmills 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbulak grassland

I'm not 100 % sure this is not a legitimate article, but in its present state it's extremely thin. One question springs to mind: What makes this particular grassland encyclopedic? A relevant Google search reveals nothing useful. I know Google isn't an oracle, but at the moment I really don't see why this article should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs)

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As exciting as grass is, WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No useful Google hits, and the author has made no attempt to make it clear why this should be included. RidG Talk 01:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fuhai? Maybe in 30 years when Wikipedia is more mature and all we have left to write about are obscure geographic elements in mainland China, the fact that this grassland is in that county will be helpful to us. Recury 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article doesn't tell us how this grassland is better than just any other grassland. --Coredesat talk 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's legitimate (to some extent), and I've (admittedly) created much less relevent articles that have managed to grow and drop their stub tag. Black-Velvet 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While this could very well be a legitimate location, no Google hits and no sources provide no verification that this actually exists. Is there anything that would make this place different than say, New Jersey grassland or Wichita empty fields? Wickethewok 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is "a fertile area for pasture that supports the famous Xinjiang sheep which are supposedly 'big as a cow.'" Recury 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Ste4k 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason why this should be included. Does not seem to have any sort of notability - if it was ntoable enough to have been mentioned on a nature program or similar, google would have turned something up. As it was I got absoloutely nothing worthwhile. Viridae ^Talk 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why should this go and the other umpteen geography stubs on Wikipedia stay? Lurker 10:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The umpteen geography stubs on Wikipedia at least have some evidence that they exist. Wickethewok 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple web pages that mention it being in Fuhai if you google it. Yes, it's boring, but it exists. Recury 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as vanity to the extreme. The nominator was right to bring it here; remove the tag and it escapes administrative notice; list it here and it'll be in public view even if someone removes the tag. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Anzovino

Should be speedy-deleted, but since the db-nonsense/db-bio tag is constantly being removed by the author, I am listing this here. Travelbird 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-bio per nom. Vandalism by the author shouldn't make this last five days. Fan1967 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fastest Possible Speedy Delete per Fan1967. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict speedy delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Keep putting the tag back as many times as it takes. Persistent removal of speedy deletion tags can warrant a block. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Island Group Company, Ltd.

Bahamian company, no website, no assertion of notability NawlinWiki 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Coredesat 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Medtopic 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and quote from article: "Island Group Company, Ltd. as it is known today came into being in early 2006" - not very likely to be notable yet --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Standard corpcruft. -- Librarianofages 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website is under construction. The article might fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) --Starionwolf 03:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it gets some good references. Black-Velvet 09:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Charles Brackett

Notability not asserted. Article appears to be copied from a book review about a surgeon. Medtopic 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet verifiability standards. Seems non notable and does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Just because he was involved in the American Civil War does not make him notable. --Strothra 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Comes up on several Civil War reference sites, e.g. [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]; also referenced at American Civil War. RidG -T- 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources or assertion of notability for a biographical entry, only a single book with a 1.5M Amazon rating, well below the WP notablity threshold. Crum375 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we should overturn the pop-bias in WP, but I can't see how this army doctor did anything unusual or was of high rank.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really any more notable than any other field surgeon. Doesn't seem to be remarkable per verifiability standards. --Coredesat talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the same grounds as -T-, but as long as it gets a good rewrite. Black-Velvet 09:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually it was 1860. WP:VER.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese (ethnicity)

Should be deleted since the info is pointless, already mentioned on the Malta article.

Delete per nom... I was going to say redirect, but since Maltese is already a spiffy disambigous page, I don't see any reason for a redirect here.--Isotope23 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say merge with Maltese people, but that itself it considered for a merge. Punkmorten 20:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Medtopic 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a lot of info and the page is redundant. Recury 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. --Coredesat talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Maltese people. There's a world of difference between ethnicity and nationality, e.g. a Maltese-Australian or Maltese-American might identify strongly with his or her Maltese ethnicity, but have little connection to the actual nation of Malta. The difference between Maltese (ethnicity)/Maltese people and Malta is pretty much the same as that between Irish people and Ireland, or Bengali people and Bengal. --Anirvan 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a lot of information, and is already mentioned on the Malta article - • The Giant Puffin • 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because the page is redundant, and also because it uses the word stock. Black-Velvet 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lynne Brydon

No assertion of notability. Medtopic 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no assertion of notability and fails to meet WP:PROFTEST as well as WP:BIO. --Strothra 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps it can come back when this person writes a popular book, or something along those lines. Black-Velvet 10:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references WP:NOR. Ste4k 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 05:00Z

Jim Weathers

Speedy delete - creator's request. BlueValour 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created it, only because it was on the list of most requested articles. I did a google search, and that is the only info I could find. Just speedy it. (sorry) P.S. I didn't request it, but either it should be expanded, or deleted. Amaas120 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect back to marriage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

straight marriage

For right now, this article doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It should either be made encyclopedic or it be deleted. Voortle 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition with very little potential for expansion.--Isotope23 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect to marriage. It is a likely search term; I got 89,600 Google hits. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect ^^ -- Librarianofages 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect as above. --Allen 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per above. SM247^{My Talk} 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per above AdamBiswanger1 03:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems fine. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
revert to redirect per all above. ~Chris (talk/e@) 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Delete as dicdef. Don't redirect as marriage covers gay marriage too. ~Chris (talk/e@) 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete. It's a dicdef, and it's somewhat likely that the user could be using a potential redirect vote to violate WP:POINT. --Coredesat talk 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me, this comes across as some sort of contrived joke. Black-Velvet 10:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does redirect imply that to Wikipedia marriage and straight marriage are the same thing? Half :-) Weregerbil 10:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are the same thing. A marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, hence "straight marriage" is a redundancy. Grook 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to guess you don't live in Massachussetts...--Isotope23 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I think that's the point of the article... Someone made it to make us turn it into a redirect just so they can prove a WP:POINT. --Agamemnon2 11:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm changing my vote to delete, after thinking about that for a bit. --Coredesat talk 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly... the whole creation of this appears to be a violation of WP:POINT, hence I don't agree with a revert.--Isotope23 12:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know, you're idea sounds like conspiracycruft. I don't think there's a consipiracy of straight people attempting to utilize reverse psychology to get you to redirect this article.--Strothra 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha, does it really come off like I think there is a broad conspiracy to elicit a redirect vote via applied reverse psychology? I simply meant that creating this article as a redirect to marriage appears to me to be representative of a POV or WP:POINT edit... as does the contributor's one other contribution. I don't mean to WP:BITE or not WP:AGF, just seems a bit suspicious. I'm not vehemently opposed to the redirect or anything, I just am not supporting it either, if that makes any sense.--Isotope23 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        haha, gotcha. It was just the way I read your comment at first. My comment was actually moreso a reply to Agamemnon2. --Strothra 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to marriage. --Strothra 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to marriage, then make bent marriage a redirect to gay marriage. ;-) — RJH (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (do not redirect) unless something can be said about it. (If it becomes a redirect, consider this a delete vote on RfD as misleading.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to marriage. Redirecting takes no position on other types of marriage. -- Infrogmation 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect is the same as creating a new defintion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. (policy) Ste4k 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to marriage. Reply to previous vote: don't be silly. Creating a redirect is not the same as creating a new definition, and certainly not the same as endorsing a particular political position. It simply means that if anyone is searching for "straight marriage", and types those words in, can find the information they want (and much more) in the article "marriage". Don't let political correctness destroy the usefulness of this encyclopedia. Ekjon Lok 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a Redirect to marriage. At this time, this is not a separate phenomenon from marriage. If the LBG advocacy group gets its way, in another generation ... but this sentence can only end with a crystal ball type comment, and we don't use those as the basis for present decisions. If it becomes a separate phenomenon, the editing crew at that time can deal with it then. Delete because the history adds nothing, redirect because it is a possible search term. GRBerry 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and DO NOT REDIRECT. Redirection would encourage people to do this sort of thing for the sake of WP:POINT. Penelope D 03:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and vehemently DO NOT REDIRECT. This is a terrible precedent for POV-pushing redirects, at a time when it's become a (suprisingly) big issue here in the U.S. (Neither should there be other similar redirects to marriage.) Grand master ka 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary and change to a {{wi}} soft-redirect to the Wiktionary entry. This should avoid WP:POINT problems whilst still providing information if somebody searches for it. --ais523 07:45, 4 July 2006 (U T C)
Redirect after all we can link to gay marriage, why not straight marriage --Robdurbar 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geordie Tuft

Not notable Flup 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the person who originally prodded this. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable TO11MTM

No vote Rather humourous but non-notable -- Librarianofages 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a vote. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Cordy said, it fails WP:BIO, but perhaps someone should consider moving it to the funnies section. Black-Velvet 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if deleted, Image:Geordie1 issue12.jpg should be deleted at same time. -- Infrogmation 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've cleaned up the beginning of article, using [7], the only clearly reliable source I could find. The article seems to have used this as its source. I'm not convinced that this is a reliable source. If it is, the article could be expanded. This is another potentially reliable source that could be used. I'd like to have a Northern Ireland based editor make the call on whether those are reliable sources, but I'm dubious or I'd have already used them. GRBerry 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 18:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Thomas

Delete fails to meet WP:NN, WP:BIO, and WP:V. Non-notable individual winning a non notable contest. No sources leading to notability of individual. Strothra 01:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the prestigious World Marble Championship. Right. Delete. RidG -T- 01:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marbles is an important emerging sport! -- Librarianofages 02:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk 04:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The competition is of no great note, but the article does cite its sources - which must be worth some kind of award. Black-Velvet 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not cite its sources. Simply because there is an external links section does not mean that any of the information in the article is derived from them. For instance, neither link mentions anything concerning the subject of the article, Mike Thomas.--Strothra 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Right. K then, that's a sharp learning curve. I didn't check that - how embarassing. Black-Velvet 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Meets WP:BIO as Sportspeople/athletes who are at the highest level in mainly amateur sports. It could use expansion. I verified the references myself. It's legit. Ste4k 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keith Moss, Alligany CO., PA Melissa Ashwood, Gunnison., CO Ste4k 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's kept it should probably be protected and an alarm set on it every year to check on next years. Perhaps National Marble Championship would be a better idea. Ste4k 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~seems like it was copy/pasted from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/mike-thomas~~ ignore that. im an idiot Antmoney85 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marrily Runoona Kuzonyei

I doubt that this poet meets our inclusion guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. The work indicates only a single poetry collection with no independent reviews. The source of the "poet of the year" nomination is this autobiography on poetsden, which I don't think qualifes as a reliable source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only work is with Publish America whose business model is non-traditional' Dlyons493 Talk 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, they self-identify as a "traditional book publishing company".[8]. --Lambiam ^Talk 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are varied reports about them, positive and negative e.g. [9]. They print on demand. Book stores apparently must order and usually pay for copies in advance and the author seems to do their own publicity. It may not be quite self-publishing - I think non-traditional is a fair enough summary. One book with them doesn't make an author notable IMHO. Dlyons493 Talk 18:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth looking at Atlanta Nights also! Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The book in question was came out this March and currently has no sales rank at all on Amazon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not a smidgen of notability suggested. And PublishAmerica is not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation among other vanity presses. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability, book published by a vanity press. --Coredesat talk 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I have sympathy for emerging African poets, I'm afraid this really doesn't meet the notability criteria. Black-Velvet 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Petros471 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn danaher

Young karate black belt, created article himself, 19 unique Ghits, only karate result I found was 4th place in one tournament NawlinWiki 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, vanity. RidG -T- 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, obvious vanity as the creator of the page is User:Senpaishawn who claims to be Shawn Danaher himself. Pascal.Tesson 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...WP:BIO AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk 04:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anirvan 08:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete vanity.--Jersey Devil 09:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged with {{db-bio}}, since the information has apparently been userfied already. --Coredesat talk 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Bisexual community. Naconkantari 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bi pride

For right now, this article doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It should either be made encyclopedic or it be deleted. Voortle 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a dicdef for a word that may or may not be a neologism. Gazpacho 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bisexual community until someone writes a better article. --Allen 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Why not. AdamBiswanger1 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bisexual community. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per chorus. hateless 07:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to suggest it is a relevant neologism. Black-Velvet 13:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encyclopedic dic def. --Strothra 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; dic def. -- Infrogmation 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Coredesat. ~Chris (talk/e@) 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Allen and Coredesat. --TeaDrinker 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. The nominator raises the point of verification, albiet in a one hour post script. There was not a single reference in this collection, and despite editor's assurances that it "could be verified" it is not. In the event that someone wants to write an article that cites sources, let the redlinks be your guide. - brenneman ^{L} 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf breaks in Australia and other "Surf breaks in X" articles

Delete. Unencyclopedic article, reads like the Yellow Pages, violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. See also earlier successful AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf breaks in Israel. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also added to this nomination are

Surf breaks in Brazil
Surf breaks in Chile
Surf breaks in Costa Rica
Surf breaks in Denmark
Surf breaks in France
Surf breaks in Germany
Surf breaks in Indonesia
Surf breaks in Ireland
Surf breaks in Mexico
Surf breaks in New Zealand
Surf breaks in Portugal
Surf breaks in Puerto Rico
Surf breaks in South Africa
Surf breaks in United Kingdom

All of these articles are basically a collection of surfing spots. I have not included a couple of others, which contain more information, and are not open and shut deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add one more grounds to the nomination: all these articles completely fail WP:V and WP:NOR, and so does the List of surfing areas. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments in the previous AfD regarding this article. Yank sox 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as potentially useful list. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- McDonalds locations in New Jersey is also a useful list to one who craves a quarter-pounder (tm). Would vote keep if I created it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - McDonald's restaurants are pretty much all the same. Surfing breaks are different. Further, they could be verified by references in surfing magazines and other reliable third party sources. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that's good then. The McDonalds restaurants have an objective criteria linking together a finite and countable way of compiling a list. This thing here, the only objective criteria connecting them is open water.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we can have bus timetables we can have surf breaks. -- Librarianofages 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bus timetables? Where?? >reaches for his Rouge mop< - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no bus timetables. I can be seen as a prime 'offender' in this regard, and even I argue against them e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney bus route 380. That something else is kept that is dubious is not an argument for keeping this anyway. In any case, Delete on basis of unencyclopaedic information (this can go up and down the whole coastline, even just within Queensland would be lengthy). SM247^{My Talk} 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Sorry I had meant lists of bus routes, this is quite similar.. I see no reason at all why this should be deleted, with organic expansion this could become a great article! -- Librarianofages 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep for australia & brazil, merge rest to List of surfing areas --Astrokey44 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of surfing areas. I would have liked to have seen the surf breaks article for Paraguay that is listed in the template at the bottom, considering it's landlocked. Recury 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that surfing in Paraguay is possible due to tidal waves on the amazon (or was that Brazil?). -- Librarianofages 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you can surf on something in Paraguay, but it still would have been funny. Recury 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these lists will always be incomplete and subjective. Theoretically any old piece of coastline can be used.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Theoretically you could point out the surfing possibilities of any part of coastline. Is the fact that they aren't in depth scientific analyses a down side for you. And since when has "incomplete" ever been a deletion point. Ansell 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Inherent "incompleteness" or "uncompletability" is a possible criteria for deletion as it results in a random list of things without a proper criteria.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- r2b2 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm voting on content here, not premise. If they were beefed up a bit, they could serve a major-enough use. Also the fact that they aren't preceded by "list of" tells me there could be some actual content written about the regions in general. AdamBiswanger1 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a valid discussion point. Voting on content means you don't have a delete point, although you alluded to rename, but didn't "bold" it, so the closer may not know what you mean. There is no way a "delete" vote will ever improve the information, that will simply remove the current efforts meaning you have to start from nothing again. Ansell 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Either keep or merge into List of surfing areas. The list is not necessarily subjective or original research; many of the linked articles describe how the areas are famous for surfing. I do worry that breakdown into multiple articles was excessive, and that's probably why Israel was deleted. Melchoir 04:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per basically everyone above. Simple lists and inaccurate to boot ( I'm sure that Boomers Beach, Victor Harbor should be Boomers Beach, Port Elliot ) --Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand into "Surfing in XXXXX", if that page already exists for some countries, then merge. --Midnighttonight 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Capitalistroadster since the list is potentially useful. Yamaguchi先生 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge; and if kept, move. Verifiable, worthwhile information should be kept somewhere, either at "Surfing areas in. . .", or "Tourism in . . ." articles. "Surf breaks in Australia" is a confusing, jargon title. Dawn breaks in Australia as well. Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This crap's worse than the aforementioned bus timetables. At least those are verifable. Like Blnguyen said earlier, these lists are highly subjective. And I don't care much for surfies. Black-Velvet 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of surfing magazines, find an article that says "people surf at x in y" and there you go. We both know no one will actually do that, but they could be verified. Recury 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So your bias against surfies directly influenced your decision, going against the NPOV wikipedia environment. That isn't what a discussion is about. Ansell 13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. These are all important and the lists are quite new. They need time to develop. --JJay 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's important enough but what objective criteria is there for selection?? WP:LIST.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any of the many 100s of books and articles on the subject. For example, google books could be a good starting point [10]. --JJay 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any agreed criteria for being a "good/notable surf-spot" - or would this end up like a list of "good footballers" with many pundits having different lists of who the "top ten footballers" are??Blnguyen | rant-line 00:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For every country, the best surf breaks are a combination of common knowledge/shared wisdom among participants in the sport. That is going to be reflected in the references (i.e. surfing guides, etc.) and seems to be reflected in the lists at present. For example, the France list now lists three surf breaks, Denmark two. It is a relatively simple matter to set some simple standards and require a decent reference for list inclusion, preferably with a short description. --JJay 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless you can come up with a numerical formula people will always argue. Any listing of "Top Ten footballers/cricketers, etc..." will have different names depending on the critic, regardless of the "common knowledge/shared wisdom" amongst the pundits. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not at all sure what you are implying by "numerical formula". I do note that WP:List, the list guideline page, makes no mention of any requirement for math or equations. These lists do not seem to be top-ten lists or rankings, so I fail to see any similarity with a top-ten list of footballers. That would be a completely different subject and approach. The lists should have set inclusion criteria supported by references (i.e. the pundits who write books and guides to surf breaks). Having said that, argument/discussion often leads to good articles. That is partly the purpose of the article talk pages. --JJay 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - As theoretically any piece of open water can be used for surfing, you'll need a criteria for including "notable surf-breaks" otherwise the list will be infinite and uncompletable - how can you rank them in an objective manner?Blnguyen | rant-line 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, your statement that any "piece of open water can be used for surfing" is completely false. Following that logic, any open field could be used for golfing. Or any inclined surface with snow could be used for skiing. Yet, we have guides to ski slopes and golf courses that do not include every grassy area, or every hill and trail. Secondly, as I said before, these articles at present are not rankings. They are lists of well-known surf breaks. How do we know they are well known? Because they are included and discussed in guides from leading publishers and I have already provided links to some of these reference works. As with any article, "objectivity" derives from the validity of the references used. Inclusion criteria is a matter to be hashed out among the list editors on the talk pages. Finally, neither "infinite" nor "completable" are valid objections. At present the lists are quite short and far from "infinite". Like ski slopes and golf courses, major surf breaks are not infinite. Regarding "completable", the lists are just as completable as any other article here (none of which is ever really complete). If the topic was not completable, or infinite, as you have implied, it would be impossible to write cogent magazine articles or guides to surf breaks. Yet those works are written and published. They are not prefaced with warning notices as to their incompleteness and the surf breaks discussed are not chosen at random. They reflect where surfers congregate to surf- just like our lists (whose main shortcomings, as far as I am concerned, are the lack of refs at present). --JJay 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Importance could not be established since it was all original research. Per Jimbo, "...what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV..." Ste4k 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Surfing in Australia etc etc etc and expand accordingly. It would be useful to have articles on the sport in particular countries, but simple lists of the top beaches is a bit pointless. BTW, Ste4k, these are not OR, since much of the information in them is from articles in Wikipedia on the places listed. Grutness...wha? 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of surfing areas, per Recury. BrownHornet21 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand per Grutness. These articles are verifiable, and not original research. Give them time to develop. -- Avenue 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Detailing locations of surf breaks is notable within the surfing field. There is as much science to surfing as any sport represented on wikipedia. Possibly rename to general Surfing in X country articles and expand but the content is not "an indiscriminate collection of material". And if this succeeds someone should put up a deletion review for the Israel deletion. Ansell 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - No it isn't - there is no objective criteria for this and in no way does it compare to say List of Formula One venues or List of Test Cricket venues, for which there are obvious criteria for a stadia/circuit which has hosted an official event. There is nothing about sports science here; an article about some surfing technique would not be nominated for deletion, just like a cricket technique article like Doosra. Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these lists are, crucially, unsourced. For a list to have value there should be added value over a category and there is no such added value here. BlueValour 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into List of surfing areas which doesn't look too large. One advantage that lists have over categories is that they can include nonexisting articles. --Zigger «º» 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per Blynguyen. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Eusebeus 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all--Peta 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above. Dr Zak 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Boy (song)

Delete do NOT Merge. The article is just lyrics. Fails to meet current standards set for songs in WP:MUSIC. Merge with The Shirelles if more substantive information is added to the article which asserts and proves the notability of the song. Strothra 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nom per article improvement. --Strothra 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lyrics are copyvios and should be deleted or speedy deleted as a copyvio. However, in my view, an article on the song itself meets the guidelines referred to by Strothra. Our article on the The Shirelles notes that it was anumber 1 hit in 1962 on the Billboard charts. This site claims it was their biggest selling hit. [11]. My comment is that the lyrics warrant deletion as a copyvio but the song is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't want to put it up for a speedy because I think that there may have been possible validity to the song being notable and thus wanted a discussion to bring that out. As per the guidelines for notability of songs as per WP:MUSIC I feel that this song itself would not merit it's own article and should be merged into the Shirelles article if it was, in fact, notable but I also recognize that the song notability guidelines are still in the proposal stage. I really didn't know what to do here because of that. I hope that you can see my dillema. --Strothra 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category list of number 1 songs according to Billboard. That indicates that it is notable enough for a standalone article for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the lyrics and put down a stub for the song. I vote to keep it but would like to hear others' views. GassyGuy 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable song, now that it's no longer just a lyric sheet. Fan1967 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article has been improved. --djrobgordon 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Melchoir 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article looks fine now. --Coredesat talk 04:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version. JIP | Talk 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets entry criteria. Black-Velvet 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chain Gang (song)

Delete Do NOT Merge. Article is nothing but lyrics. Merge with Sam Cooke if article is expanded to include substantive information behind the song. Strothra 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom due to improvements in article. --Strothra 13:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get some info down, but I'm kinda tired, so it's a bit dry and disjointed in its current incarnation. Still, given the high placing of the song on various national charts, the fact that it stills gets airplay on oldies stations, and the multiple reasonably notable versions recorded, I would say that it is fair to keep this one. GassyGuy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the song is notable, and the article is significantly improved. --djrobgordon 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Melchoir 04:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved now. --Coredesat talk 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version. JIP | Talk 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - repost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stolensidekick.com

Article on subject already covered in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 and and wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolensidekick AFD debates, both of which to delete; the first one having to be protected. Hbdragon88 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a message board for retrieving misplaced or stolen sidekicks. -- Koffieyahoo 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a specific lost sidekick that had wide media coverage. It's not a lost and found. Dgies 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation. Fan1967 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruffft -- Librarianofages 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, I don't get the point of this story. I'm sure people lose cell phones in cars all the time, and people are able to track them down. Bid deal this got a lot of press. Also, this lost all crebability when they decided to auction off the phone and keep 2/3rds of the money while even t-mobile decided to match 1— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.70.139 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom and Fan1967. (This topic is more than covered at T-Mobile Sidekick). Agent 86 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. WarpstarRider 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well documented story on internet vigelantism and memes which had mainstream media coverage in an NYTimes article, a MSNBC segment, and an interview on WINS radio. That's a lot more public notice than most of the things in Category:Internet memes ever got. Can anyone explain why this is less worthy than everything else in Category:Internet vigilantism? Dgies 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as cruft. Unfortunately, I don't see as this being the next Densha Otoko. --M e rovingian {T C @} 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, this again? Delete for the reasons I voted to delete its other incarnations. GassyGuy 04:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation per Fan1967. We shouldn't even discuss the merits of the case here; take it to DRV if necessary.Melchoir 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it dead. Again. Maybe a wooden stake will be necessary this time. --Calton | Talk 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G4, recreation of deleted material. Tagged. --Coredesat talk 04:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance architects

Doesn't seem notable, only 5 pages of Google results. Finally, the original author of the article uses an email from the company, which suggests this is vanity. Crystallina 02:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. Pascal.Tesson 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:corp -- Librarianofages 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity AdamBiswanger1 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, newness is also suspect. Melchoir 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no resources to verify all original research. It's the author's requirement to establish credibility ours is merely to verify it. Ste4k 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleter. Has anyone considered advertising? Black-Velvet 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Avi 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer games for Playstation 2

WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and lists of multiplayer-capable games seem to be just that. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Ben414 - Please do not blank the text you are responding to. It makes it near impossible to track the conversation. Likewise, please refrain from blanking the header, as this screws up the format of the Deletion page. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly Listed This list only promotes games for use in couple's play, or a party. I have found no known list of this type, and thus am now creating it. I am not good at the wiki formatting, however this artle need to exist. This article has as much right to exist as this, this, and this. --Ben414 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that this list exists nowhere else on the net is more an argument against keeping it than for it. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and not a place to store new information. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PointAs you can see I did not start the listing sections, but rather am trying to add to them.

A list of multiplayer games for playstation 2 organized by number of players is not indecriminate. They have to fit into a category, which in this case is number of players. Nowhere else on the net does this list exist, and I would hope that wikipedia would realize its importance. Furthmore, why was this even suggested as being marked for deletion as according to this, no mention of this category type is mentioned. --Ben414 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With expansion, this article could be just as worthy as any other list. I also happen to think it will expand, given the involvement of gamers on Wikipedia. The list also serves a useful enough purpose, and it is for a notable entity. AdamBiswanger1 03:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:RidG I appreciate the fact that you are trying to keep wikipedia pure, but don't let your own biases keep this unique, and desperately needed article from existing. Also information is always evolving and expanding, so trying to keep information a certain size is impossible. Wikipedia needs to grow, and if a missing article exists, it needs to be created.{{--Ben414 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)|Ben414}}[reply]
Ben - I don't know if I agree with your allegation of "bias," and I certainly don't agree with your statement that this is a "desperately needed article." We'll agree to disagree on this. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think this list is an indiscriminate list of info- it's a very specific list, one with a finite number of entries, each of which sharing an important quality (unlike "List of songs with the word 'song' in the title, or something like that, in which the shared quality is highly trivial). I think this list is quite useful- moreso than the vast majority of lists on WP. Obviously, the list has to be highly expanded (including placing the "expand" tag on the article), but it could easily become an excellent list. -- Kicking222 03:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there were categories Category: 2-player multiplayer games, we could just go with that instead. AdamBiswanger1 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is attempting to serve as a list for play on the same PS2, as opposed to online networking; in addition, instead of adding categories for 2-, 4-, 8-, x-player games, I like the idea of having them all in one place. Perhaps the article should be moved to a title that is more appropriate. -- Kicking222 03:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I knew I wasn't crazy in wanting such a list. As I discovered from alot of gaming stores, no one knows what the offering is...it needs to exist, something wikipedia is known for!!--Ben414 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say 100% that this list needs to exist, but I think it should. I've added a few titles, and if I can think of some more, I'll throw them on the list. -- Kicking222 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, needs is strong, but as I've said before, nowhere else does this exist. Is there a better category...I was focusing on the concept of gaming as a group, i.e. more than just the 2 player types, but they are essentially also included.--Ben414 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's nothing indiscriminant about it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list but rename List of multiplayer PlayStation 2 games; too long to merge into the universal, alphabetic List of PlayStation 2 games. Melchoir 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think that it would be much easier to simply create a category like "Playstation 2 games for 1-x players". Does anyone object to this? I mean, I think this choice is screaming at us AdamBiswanger1 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that categories are easier, because they have to be populated. Anyway, they don't obsolete lists. Melchoir 04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I have a problem with categories either; Category:PlayStation 2 games could use to be broken up. Melchoir 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Melchoir's suggestion, or List of Playstation 2 games for 2 or more players. Including one player would be redundant... you need at least one person playing, otherwise it's a movie.--Ben414 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well whatever you guys decide, since it's unanymous that the article should stay. Just Pick a decent name for it, and add, add, add....make this Baby grow.--Ben414 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of multiplayer PlayStation 2 games. I've also wikified the page slightly. --ais523 11:44, 29 June 2006 (U T C)

Thank you Ais523, and all who have stood up for this article.--Ben414 14:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While a legitimate list, I can't see it having any practical value. Almost all video games have some sort of multiplayer mode, thus making this almost a list of all PS2 games, which would be redundant. Wickethewok 14:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of Multiplayer PlayStation 2 games or something along those lines. This does have useful information like number of players supported, so it would lose something as a category. Ace of Sevens 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. Ste4k 02:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be more remarkable if you could populate it with a list of the games that didn't have an option for multiplay mode. No conceivable use. GassyGuy 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is more detailed than the article for the list of ps2 network games, and I doubt will ever get as long as the generic list of PS2 games which is not contested.

This is a list that may not apply to those who contest it, but those who do like having gaming get-togethers would find this list extremely useful. It is more useful in that the users know immediately that these games would be beneficial for them.

As stated again, and again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it needs to grow, and be home to items that are organized in a useful way.

The alternative is aimlessly reading the descriptions of all ps2 games from wiki, which only states one player, or multiplayer. Multiplayer is as much a number as over is a direction; vague at best.

I will say this: If this specialized, wikipedia list is marked for deletion, then delete them all, if not, kill all the bias against it.--Ben414 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not biased against it, but it just doesn't strike me as at all necessary or of particular use. I highly doubt that others who expressed views of deleting it are doing so because of bias either. Please consult WP:AGF. To the list's credit, it's certainly better organized than this mess of a discussion. GassyGuy 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ever wanted to know what games were for x number of players, you would see the use of this. Look at it from that perspective, and you'll understand the importance, and place this article has.--Ben414 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is rallying behind killing this list off, while the longer lists similar to this remain unmolested. Over and over users say this list is very organized, more so than others, and yet it's on the chopping block. -- Ben414 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is of no importance, and could even give way to Wikipedia:Advertising. Black-Velvet 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What advertising?? This article is as much advertising, as the facts relating to any other game article on this site. All this does is tell people these games are more than solitary. The extent of this article's 'advertising' is it link to the selected game's article, and helps determine whether that type of game is desired or not. I don't know about anyone else, but that's a guideline I use to determine if I should get a game or not. This just organizes the games by number of players from 2 up. Why all the drama about this article anyway?? --Ben414 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any article about a consumer product on here has the potential to be called advertising, as they state the pros and cons the the product. The readers themselves decide based on their opinion whether to seek out the product or not. Advertising would link to a store, or commercial website, and a list is as neutral as it could be.--Ben414 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless someone will be able to show a violation of Wikipedia:List guideline.--Pokipsy76 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the best point right there. There is no violation, so the reasoning for adding this to begin with, I don't understand. This list is a tool. Anyone looking to play a game with a frined, or significant other, as well as use their multitap (or generic alternative) can use this list to shape what they rent or buy at a gance, instead of reading the backs of every single game in the store, or rental store.--Ben414 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burgess

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. From the history, this also appears to be WP:VAIN. I originally slapped a prod on this months ago, but totally forgot about it, so here it is. Delete unless more third-party evidence comes up to explain why he is encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scanty inforamtion on Google. Data recovery is notable but I agree this guy is not. BlueValour 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plus, the guy who wrote it is User:Sburgess. AdamBiswanger1 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk 04:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Read the history. Ste4k 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. Black-Velvet 08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has made contributions to multiple academic areas and has business pursuits as well as law pursuits. How is this all so non-notable that he can't have an article? Vanity can be cleaned up. Ansell 01:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Shopping for Philanthropy

A curious article that seems to be a combination of OR and links. Either way, not-encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Terrible, terrible, terrible AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, I suppose. Or maybe just nonsense. --djrobgordon 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsensical spamvertisement. --Coredesat talk 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thinly veiled advertising. JIP | Talk 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete because I'm a misanthrope. Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ACIM-cruft waiting to happen. Ste4k 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per above. I also suggest someone reports this to the Wiki Spam Patrol, as whoever created this has likely made pages elsewhere. Black-Velvet 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, ...club that does not assert the importance or significance etc. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester_Professional_Wrestling

Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG. Sasaki 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - so far from WP:CORP it is out of sight. This is a proposed organisation not yet functioning. BlueValour 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable crystallized advertising. No assertion of notability, so potential A7 candidate. --Coredesat talk 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete, WP:NOT advertising forum or crystal ball. ~Chris (talk/e@) 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling_Association_of_Rugby

Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG Sasaki 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG by a longshot. --Coredesat talk 04:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, no asseration of notability. Yank sox 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BigBro6cruft, just give it five more years. Ste4k 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Black-Velvet 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. School reference makes it almost certainly a juvenile "joke". Saga City 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morris N. Guller

The political season is upon us where every candidate for American elections is dumping his press release on WP. Fails WP:BIO unless someone knows of some notability, BlueValour 03:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fringe candidate who ran under a third party in 2004. Unless he gets becomes the endorsed, Democratic candidate (this seems to be his goal), he doesn't deserve an article, and even then, this isn't it. --djrobgordon 03:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nuke from orbit. Even if the guy were notable, this article is just an excuse to publish a letter from him. Wikipedia is not a free bulletin board for political candidates. Fan1967 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page provides important information. Please retain Edwin A. Pell III— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred987 (talk • contribs)

This page provides campaign literature. This is not the venue for it. Fan1967 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This article isn't about Edwin A. Pell III anyway. --Metropolitan90 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, he's another candidate in the same race. Once I looked at that article, I AfD'ed it, too. Fan1967 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Campaign literature, not for the 'Pedia. The godless politicians can worship their material wealth elsewhere. Black-Velvet 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Naconkantari 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hlee Xiong

This was an orphaned AfD page, listing it now. I am not voting at this time. WarpstarRider 03:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a pretty textbook vanity article, is it not? Steve McLinden 03:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity Iggy402 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having one of those clever, clever websites that I can't be bothered to get my head round doesn't help her cause! Little in the way of Google notability. BlueValour 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I "did had sex." Maybe I should have a page too. --djrobgordon 03:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're referring to a vandalized version of the page (since reverted). Nevertheless, delete. The only source provided does not support the claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pageant looks like a hoax too. Melchoir 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of WP:VAIN. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for faliing WP:BIO --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without reservation but with melancholy, read if you care). I came across this article while reviewing the sourcing or lack thereof in the "hyphenated-Americans" lists. After reading this article it is clear that it fails WP:BIO. I have prodded a few others along the way for same reason. The melancholy results from reviewing the lists and seeing massively long lists for some ethnic groups. The natural (and everywhere but WP, commendable) reaction would be to note and extol "heroes" of one's ethnicity, and where there are fewer perhaps elevate some otherwise non-notable people to article status. I know I felt this way growing up Latino in a predominantly Anglo society. I'm sure I wasn't alone in that feeling. So, while the result (delete) is clear, my feelings are decidedly mixed. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, List of Hmong Americans is quite short but still not empty. Perhaps one of the articles could be promoted to Featured status? That would get some attention. Melchoir 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be a good idea, and I'm glad someone read my ramble. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rhetorical conjecture aside, she's simply not notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia at this stage. Black-Velvet 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Naconkantari 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer Shack

Zero Google hits; anothe NN website, Fails WP:WEB BlueValour 03:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wiki. --djrobgordon 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Answer is Delete. This site doesn't even have its own URL, its a blogspot page. The article itself states that "there are not many users". Pretty nn to me, right there. Agent 86 06:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEB --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per BlueValour. Black-Velvet 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hampel

Vanity article, little information, unverified (Author posts this as the edit summary when creating the article: Info obtained 1994-2000 by email during genealogy research. First two sources unverified) --NMChico24 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article helped me find the roots to my last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.223.62 (talk • contribs)
Delete I find many articles about people who share my last name. I don't find one about my last name itself, or a half-dozen others I checked. I can't see any purpose in this. Fan1967 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like original research. --M e rovingian {T C @} 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Geneaology is covered in WP:NOT. --djrobgordon 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is not vain, nor a geneaology; we have plenty of name articles with diverse content; we don't delete stubs for being stubs; and there's a huge difference between "unverified" and the capital offense of "unverifiable". At least part of it is certainly not original research. Melchoir 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can provide sources and a claim of notability, I'd be happy to change my vote. --djrobgordon 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: Hans Bahlow, Deutsches Namenlexicon. Notability I'm not so sure on, but you could argue that names are inherently notable, like towns. Melchoir 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue lots of things. But the bottom line is, when even the article's author claims 2/3 of her/his sources are unverified, it provides for a pretty dubious basis for an encyclopedia article. --NMChico24 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this point, non-notable and unverified. --Coredesat talk 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a disambig page in the future but there are not enough articles to reference. Perhaps when Hampel Portable Toilets And Portable Sanitation Products and Hampel Corp are created this will be useful. --Peripitus (Talk) 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per unverificationage. Black-Velvet 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

talk. o.o;; 03:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- Kjkolb 03:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the nines

~~Non-notable phrase and concept with a dismal showing on Google, apparently a rehash of this article. Inherently POV.~~ Melchoir 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable concept, fails WP:NPOV Keep. The article seems better now. --Coredesat talk 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic, NPOV violation, bordering on OR. JIP | Talk 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify.

Disclaimer: I did add content to this page, although I didn't initiate it, and I suspect that it's me that you're accusing of being POV. At the time I edited it, I was a Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems, specialising in system availability and its effect on users, so I claim some degree of expert knowledge. I do agree that the phrase has a poor google showing, and I'm somewhat surprised at that; I had heard the phrase used by a wide variety of people in the computer industry, including marketing types, at the time I first visited the page.

A significant use of the phrase is in a paper from Borland: http://bdn1.borland.com/borcon2004/article/paper/0,1963,32145,00.html#_Toc81733447 Their explanation of the myth is rather broader than mine, but the thrust is the same, and it is significant that they are using the same phrase. Another published reference is http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/69/04714302/0471430269.pdf which seems to be part of an important textbook, although I can't quite make out which one!

It appears to be from the 2nd edition (or draft thereof) of Blueprints for High Availability. The phrase does not appear in the same place in the 1st edition from 2000. I have a signed copy. Call me geek.

And the phrase is taught in the college lecture http://www.pld.ttu.ee:81/IAF0030/lec/lec1.pdf So the phrase does have industrially significant published references and I (as an expert) can attest that it is used in the industry. I suggest that it is little known because it is an obscure corner (the intersection of engineering and user experience) of an abstruse field (systems availability management), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to those who deal in such matters.

I do agree that it's a scruffy article. The section on evaluating nines (did I add that bit?) is a repeat of information in several other articles, and should be replaced by a cross-reference.

I'd like to keep the article and I offer to take the published sources I cite above and synthesise them into a better version. I'll do that ASAP, anyway.

Emrys2 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, references! Well, I withdraw my nomination then. I do suggest moving the article to a more neutral title and making the present information into a section, though. Melchoir 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A genuine concept in the field, and the sources prove it so. Black-Velvet 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed this a few moments ago, but I forgot that I can't close AFD discussions that have both withdrawn nominations and delete votes (there is one delete vote). The discussion has been reopened due to my mistake. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and notable concept in IT fields, with sources. - CNichols 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an intersting topic, and the content is accurate and sited. --Thebigjc 05:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been in the IT industry for too long, and I've heard it used and used it myself Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Rate

It has no scientific content þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for using an apostrophe in possessive "its". Either that or WP:NOR. In other news, "All that exist is imploding to a seemingly singularity" wouldn't make a bad T-shirt. Melchoir 04:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NOR. If it is not then the article is merely an suggestion and there is no proper reference in it anyays. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:52Z
Delete per Melchoir. This type of thing has to cite its sources to assert its credibility. --DaveG12345 09:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Black-Velvet 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journey To What?

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Can't find 'em by searching the web, nothing for sale at Amazon, not at All Music. Mikeblas 03:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Journey to Deletion, fails WP:MUSIC, doesn't seem to be verifiable. --Coredesat talk 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell from looking on the outside. Yank sox 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability, can not find anything with a google search. --Joelmills 02:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, and the unproven blue-link vs red-link test. Black-Velvet 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per everyone and owner's emailed request. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luna-C Productions

No vote procedural nomination. Article was previously three times speedied and recreate-protected as a {{db-group}}, but the author persevered and convinced me to give s/him a change at AfD. So I did. Author basicall admits on my talk page to being part of the troupe, so this has a vanity aspect to it. Beyond that, it would be nice to have things like newspaper coverage etc. to assess notability. I hope the author can provide that over the next five days. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending info from creaotr. ~Chris (talk/e@) 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete per below.. ~Chris (talk/e@) 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability, nothing on Google or Yahoo that establishes any. --Coredesat talk 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Coredesat. No google news hits, < 65 google hits and only 6 with them in the title. CrazyRussian is being fair but this has no chance of being notable --Peripitus (Talk) 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Teeth-achingly non-notable. The highpoints of the members' bios almost look like parodies. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with kudos to CrazyRussian for being patient and transparent. Ifnord 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed CSD template. Author has yet to post his opinion, but he's about to per his emails. Give him a chance to show notability at least. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Notable accomplishments of cast members" Individuals being notable does not mean the group is notable. --Pboyd04 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Mathematical proof - nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof techniques

Originally PRODed by KSmrq with the following reason: "This article is poorly conceived, poorly written, and useful content (if any) is better done elsewhere, as the talk page documents. Has had a fixit tag for over a year." However, we can't delete an article because it's poorly written. I'm bringing it to AFD: keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC) After reading these comments, I agree with redirect to Mathematical proof. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. AFD is not cleanup, this needs a cleanup tag, not a PROD/AFD tag. --Coredesat talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical proof, which is the same, but better. Forget about the last sentence of the prod and read the rest. The article doesn't need cleanup; it needs to go away. Melchoir 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to mathematical proof. As KSmrq said, the article has no useful content. This seems a good reason for deletion to me: cleaning it up would not resolve this, but it would leave us with an empty article. Replacing it with a redirect would solve the problem. I'm not sure the redirect is useful though, so deletion is fine too. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC) )written simultaneously with Melchoir, hence the repetition)[reply]
Redirect it's not so much that there is no room for such an article. But this one is so poor (especially compared to the Mathematical proof one) that it should disappear it its current format. Eventually, this could be spun off the main article. Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical proof without prejudice to later creation of a better article by this name. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Melchoir. --DaveG12345 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical proof. Disregard my previous remark since I somehow missed the "contested prod" part earlier. --Coredesat talk 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Mathematical proof. At a later time, a reasonable article with this title could be carved out of there, but this isn't it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R5 productions

NN music promoter trying to promote self. Daniel Case 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it doesn't meet WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORP and it's more like an Ad. to me. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per fail of WP:CORP, and for failing to cite any sources whatsoever. Black-Velvet 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luscious

Non-notable wrestler WP:BIO. WP:VAIN may apply too. I looked it up and this worker isn't even contracted to the promotion she is currently with, DSW, nor the major company, WWE, either. Non-notable. — The King of Kings 04:43 June 29 '06

Delete per nom--Jusjih 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. More than likely fails WP:VAIN, after looking at the editor's page ("I would like to become a professional wrestler"). --Coredesat talk 06:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Em-jay-es 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To sum the above - non-notable vain amateur wrestlers, not exactly an ideal Wiki article. Black-Velvet 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arters Anonymous

"After an amazingly successful first show 'Arters quickly became a comedy force to be reckoned with on the small Mennonite campus". But Wikipedia can wait, I think. Daniel Case 05:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - we can certainly wait for them to become well known --Peripitus (Talk) 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Oh the vanity... Pascal.Tesson 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails CSD-A7. Fails WP:ORG, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Vanity to the extreme. Tagged. --Coredesat talk 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Almost negative notability. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TG The Analog Master of Disaster

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Less than 50 hits searching. Nothing on amazon.com or all music. Only page author is "TG 1980", the subject's initials and year of birth. Mikeblas 05:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable NawlinWiki 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I question the notability of anyone whoes claim to fame is being the host of an internet radio program that they started in their teens. Black-Velvet 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio of http://www.indiapartners.org/partners/rhs.php —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:34Z

Iris Paul

Does being a missionary make her notable? I don't think so. Medtopic 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are notable missionaries, but being a missionary dosn't make you notable per se. Delete. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk 06:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notability is asserted as the co-founder of a mission/charity, not just being a mere missionary. hateless 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip R. Johnson

Fails to meet WP:BIO, WP:V, and fails to prove its case for inclusion. Possible vanity. An56 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curator of the web's largest collection of sermons by Charles Spurgeon. Despite this Guinness-worthy distinction, I'll have to go with delete, vanity bio. --Calton | Talk 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. --Coredesat talk 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a prominent theological writer and editor. He is a close companion of John F. MacArthur, and Johnson is the director of the noteworthy ministry Grace to You. The inexperienced An56 nominated this article along with several other people mentioned as alumni for the Moody Bible Institute, as some form of cleanup to the articles pertaining to the institution. If anything, this article may need cleaned-up/expanded, not deleted. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting person, but still I couldn't find anyone who found him interesting enough to write about him. Please, people, if you think someone is notable establish it. "I've heard about this guy before" is not a criterion for notability. ~ trialsanderrors 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A "prominent theological writer and editor?" Mind sourcing that for us? This guy isn't even the front man for the ministry of which he is purportedly the director. A directed Google search [12] turns up only 99 unique hits, the lead few of which is his own website, this Wikipedia article and Wikimirrors, and various religious forums and blogs; I've got more unique G-hits than that. RGTraynor 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable bio +/- vanity. Ifnord 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Personally, I'd like to see this article rewritten and properly sourced. But in it's current state I'm angling for a delete. Black-Velvet 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Guggenmos

A voice teacher for 20 students does not make one notable. Fails WP:BIO. An56 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN (main editor was anon, who became Neilgugg). --Coredesat talk 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above and probably fails WP:V as well. --ColourBurst 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:31Z
Delete for failing WP:BIO --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Winhunter. I could have SWORN I nominated this myself months ago... Tom Lillis 10:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The history page is filled with edits by a user with the same name as the person this article's about. Black-Velvet 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Chapman (author)

Fails to meet WP:BIO and appears to be vanity since it is missing WP:V. An56 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable per Google (179,000 hits, 492 unique). His book has an Amazon sales rank of 61. --Coredesat talk 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coredesat. (Amazon sales rank is 61 now, 2 hours later?) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:29Z
- Comment Er, whoops, that was a mistake. It's 61, up from 71. --Coredesat talk 10:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a poor article at present, but the subject is certainly notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crappy article is worthy of a {{cleanup}} tag rather than a AfD. Ifnord 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It needs to cite it's sources, though. Black-Velvet 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.

California College Democrats

Yet another statewide college political group. Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California College Republicans, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Even without that precedent, any article which argues for notability with something like "CCD is known for such programs as its 2004 Reno/Las Vegas Campaign Invasion for John Kerry. The trip sent over 200 College Democrats to Nevada and was the largest of its kind in the country." Two hundred Democrats at once! Calton | Talk 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College Democrats. --Coredesat talk 06:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Coredesa. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:27Z
Delete as was done with California College Republicans.--Isotope23 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess statewide is pretty meaningful and California may be an important state for democrats. Would be nice if the article had photos from that Nevada trip. Those democrats really know how to party after a hard day of getting out the vote. --JJay 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular instance of the College Democrats does not seem notable. --Pboyd04 23:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California College Republicans. --Metropolitan90 07:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Black-Velvet 09:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ca college republicans article had nothing noteworthy. This provides important info about youth activism. Carlton obviously knows nothing about that, which is why articles like this need to stay. Did anyone read "largest in the country"? This group will only become more notable as California gets set for a competitive election for governor. --theabsman 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This provides important info about youth activism Yeah, that they know how to organize trips to Reno. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, you're right--delete...--Theabsman 09:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Calton. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- Kjkolb 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry A. Ironside

No proof or statement of notablity. Lacks WP:V and fails WP:BIO. An56 06:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. 250 unique Google hits, but the article asserts no notability (that isn't verified with reliable sources), and preaching at a notable person's funeral doesn't make you notable. --Coredesat talk 06:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no assertions of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:25Z
- Keep on the condition that the article will become encyclopedic, as promised below. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 22:06Z
Keep. Suggest taking a look at this biography. Ironside is the subject of a 15-page booklet in the Christian Hall of Fame series and he appears to have been a prominent religious leader and the author of a number of books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, but I will definitely concede the posibility someone could make a case towards WP:BIO and I'm willing to consider further evidence provided.--Isotope23 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat's Google search. Ifnord 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - he's the author of well over 50 books that are considered "classics" in the religious community. An Amazon.com search under his name brought up many...that alone should demonstrate notability. Article should be expanded to demonstrate notability, a task I'll commit to if article is kept Akradecki 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. You could argue that it meets WP:BIO, albeit in a very contrived manner. Also, as Akradecki said, he has written a lot of influential material. Black-Velvet 09:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order to demonstrate notability, I've listed some of the books Ironside authored, as well as three biographies written about him, and added a little text to the body. As I mentioned in my earlier vote, if the article stays, I'll be expanding it into a proper encyclopaedic entry. Akradecki 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ironside has had a profound influence on the development of Christian fundamentalism — something which many commentators now worry about in connection with American politics. Notable therefore as an aid towards understanding current affairs. DFH 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable per discussion above. Google search is not immaculate (pun intended). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Goldom. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-- Kjkolb 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Keith Shear

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:PROFTEST. Medtopic 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author seems to be creating sub-stubs for lecturers in his department en masse. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:24Z
Delete, fails WP:PROFTEST. --Coredesat talk 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. Tevildo 12:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tevildo. Molerat 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David Caldicott

Not notable as a physician. The group he heads isn't notable either. Medtopic 06:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 92 references in an Australia-New Zealand media database. He is an active advocate of harm minimisation in the drugs debate. It needs a cleanup and wikification though. It should also be moved to David Caldicott according to convention. Capitalistroadster 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Capitalistroadster. --Coredesat talk 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verified. Capilastroadster's information should bring him within WP:PROF, but we need that evidence in the article. Tevildo 12:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His name is on the Autralian Medical Association's press release regarding need for further "pill research". Notable enough for me. Ifnord 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster -- Synapse 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Capitalistroadster. Black-Velvet 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable doctor. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Insa Nolte

No assertion of notability. Medtopic 07:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author seems to be creating sub-stubs for lecturers in his department en masse. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:25Z
Delete - non-notable lecturer, fails WP:BIO. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability, so potential A7 candidate. --Coredesat talk 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. Fails WP:PROF. Article title also shouldn't have the "Dr." in it per WP:NCP. Tevildo 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Tevildo. Black-Velvet 09:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Harrison

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Plainly a talented player who may well make it big one day. However, he doesn't yet seem to have achieved anything particularly notable. Views, please. BlueValour 07:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm naturally biased towards things I work on, but upon further analysis, he doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Chaser T 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:21Z
Delete - state tournaments aren't notable enough, fails WP:BIO --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet, fails WP:BIO. Come back when you've hit the big time, Grant. --Coredesat talk 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO(sportspeople). PJM 11:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Chaser Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coredesat -- Scientizzle 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This tennis player is well known on the USTA circuit. Duck684

Account created today.--Chaser T 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm from NC and I've heard of him. He's pretty well known in regional tennis circles. gatsby23

Account created today.--Chaser T 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may well become notable enough to warrant an article once he achieves a higher ranking but for mine, he isn't notable enough yet. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bichromate From what I've read, this player is like a bridge that played some significance in the Civil War that is located in a rural town. Like the bridge, he may not be famous, but he is notable. Bichromate 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Account created today.--Chaser T 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He isn't notable by any criteria, and he has a group of twatty friends who are spamming the AfD discussion. Black-Velvet 10:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe we will see this resurface at another time. Maybe not. RFerreira 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (fandom)

For the exact same reasons as the Zelda fandom AfD; Cannot be independently verified, and therefore is WP:OR, unable to be neutrally written. Nifboy 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR violation. hateless 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A lot of the current article may be unverifiable as above, but there are verifiable facts there (such as alt.fan.sonic-hedgehog timeline). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:20Z
Strong Delete Totally unencyclopedic, only references are usenet postings! If there are any hidden gems of good verifiable information in there, they can be merged into the main Sonic article, but I didn't see any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nn, fancruft, completely unencyclopedic.--Jersey Devil 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as non-notable fancruft that fails WP:NOR. Sure, the fandom exists, but the info in this article is unverifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 11:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not as OR, but because there's very little here that sets Sonic fandom apart from any other fandom. Every fandom has Mary Sues, every fandom has debates over shipping and yaoi/yuri, etc. - we could just cover that stuff in the main fandom article and have done with it, and anything distinctive about Sonic fandom can be mentioned in the Sonic the Hedgehog article. Penelope D 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply isn't specific enough to be notable. You could talk about individual forums, but they wouldn't be notable enough to warrant their own articles, nor a compiled one either. Black-Velvet 10:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. -- Kjkolb 04:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest automakers

For this list to have any value it needs to be sourced, dated and specify the quantities. At present it is unencyclopaedic. I have tagged for sourcing and if the deficiencies are rectified during the AfD I am happy to withdraw the nomination. As it stands it is a delete. BlueValour 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Delete~~Redirect (if there is such a thing) by quantity of what? Sales? Cars produced? Assets? Shares issued? Share capital raised? Employees? Directors? Factories? Countries in which there is a presence? Types of products? Outlets? Prices? Quality control issues? No sources and no explanation of premise, and not even really a definition of an 'automaker'. SM247^{My Talk} 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of automobile manufacturers, which already has a sexy graph with top manufacturers by production volume. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:17Z
Redirect to List of automobile manufacturers, per Quarl. --Coredesat talk 10:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a redirect IMO, an unlikely search term. Tevildo 11:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, unsourced list list. Additionally, criteria for this list is undefined as SM247 pointed out above.--Isotope23 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quarl is right... that graph is so sexy I am changing to Redirect to List of automobile manufacturers.--Isotope23 15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Quarl. Amalas =^_^= 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Tevildo. Black-Velvet 10:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entities (novel)

Non notable self-published novel by non-notable author. 64 Google hits, no reviews I could find Fram 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like published by iUniverse. Amazon page: [13]. Can't say the reviews on there are worth anything though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:14Z

For all clarity: iUniverse is a "Print on demand service" (they say so themselves), hence a novel published by iUniverse is a self-published novel. Fram 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:39Z

Delete, non-notable novel published by a vanity press, by a non-notable author. Completes the non-notability trifecta for books. --Coredesat talk 10:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Nearly Headless Nick 11:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 11:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has two editorial reviews on Amazon.com, and that's enough for me. Black-Velvet 12:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamika Huston

PROD tag removed by anon. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and getting murdered doesn't make a person notable. Delete. User:Angr 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's news coverage and even meta-news coverage. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:42Z
Strong keep: significant news event. Lots of WP precedent here; see eg. LaToyia Figueroa. –Dicty (T/C) 10:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this article seems to cover the (notable) subject quite well. --Coredesat talk 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD tag was missing on article--I've applied it... -- Scientizzle 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huston's story was widely used as an example of racial disparity in news coverage. It's interesting to see the familiar names (if you're American, that is) at Missing white woman syndrome that received orders of magnitude more press, especially Brooke Wilberger who disappeared at almost the same time. -- Scientizzle 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huston's story is interesting. This is one of the articles that deserve coverage because of MWWS/missing pretty girl coverage. O'Reilly, Van Sustran, Grace and many others exploit this media coverage for their own personal gains. user:LILVOKA.
Keep per LILVOKA and Scientizzle. --ColourBurst 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nom. No evidence of encyclopedic notability, . Keep voters - please note that Wikipedia is not a TV news channel, and that "interesting"/"human interest" is totally insufficient for notability in an encyclopedia. Regarding the relation to the "Missing White Woman" comparison - the FIRST time this comparison is made for the disappearance of a black woman is probably sufficiently notable in itself. But if this comparison comes up every time a black woman or white woman or any other woman disappears, are we to include every single one of these cases as articles just because the news media needs "talking points" each time to cover their asses? Bwithh 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This post-current affair has plenty of reliable sources (media coverage), and relates to a number of concepts. However, as per Bwitth, it is to a large extent unreliable human interest hype. So it is with great reluctance that I keep my keep. Black-Velvet 12:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete this article and we may as well delete all articles on other murder victims like John Lennon or Rebecca Schaeffer. Celebrity status (or lack thereof) is NOT relevant. Drmagic 00:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I don't understand that one at all. Those people were famous when alive. Huston wasn't. I don't see any similarity. Fan1967 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like the anon got it right for a change. RFerreira 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mtml

Neologism with no references. A Google search for "mushy text markup language" (the purported expansion of the acronym) turned up exactly one hit -- this Wikipedia article. Anirvan 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: made up by the author (or his friends). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-29 08:46Z
Delete per nom and Quarl. Vanity neologising. --DaveG12345 09:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G1. By the way, I think that page has too few infoboxes. –Dicty (T/C) 10:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic stereotypes in American media

This article is based on loose impressions of what might be in the mind of the complex American media. Contributers rattle off any of the ethnic characters that pop into their heads, and then proceed to call their traits stereotypical. For every assertion the article makes there are thousands of exceptions, and is therefore unfit for wikipedia. ShadowyCabal 08:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd Suggestion I strongly suggest that List_of_stock_film_roles_based_on_ethnic_stereotypes be added to this afd nomination discussion. It seems to be a list that was branched off the above article and has similar issues Bwithh 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I think it needs a retool, not a deletion (there's a wealth of information in the old versions, but it's not organized). Phenomenon like blackface and blaxploitation appear in Wikipedia despite the American media productions that are not of blackface or blaxploitation. There does need to be a better definition of what constitutes a stereotype, and some of the other things (like minority underrepresentation in media) need to be branched off. --ColourBurst 08:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is referenced. If it lacks references on some sections, then delete those sections. This is a notable subject and probably, there is work published on it. Afonso Silva 09:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but clean up big time. --Coredesat talk 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, even outside America due to influence of such media elsewhere, just needs to be fixed up. SM247^{My Talk} 11:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We all agree to the following :the word "Stereotype" should be clearly defined. The American Media is widespread. Wikipedia should say (even though it's obvious) that the American media reflects social attitudes of the general public, and therefore stereotypes. Life reflects art reflects life. If we all agree on these things, this article is redundant. There should be only a page called Stereotype and each ethnicity should have it's own page filled with facts.- ShadowyCabal
  - Comment I agree with your overall point, but part of the problem is that it's unreasonable to pin down a definition on "Stereotype" to begin with as it would only serve to reflect the bias of the editor. And the idea that art reflects life is unproven, and in my opinion, unprovable, but the article does assert that, "As art is often a reflection of society, these stereotypes can be said to represent American society's dominant view of ethnic groups." Words like "often" and "can be said to represent" seems to invalidate this whole assertion. Basically this sentence reads that "sometimes art reflects society and sometimes it doesn't." And if this assertion were more strongly worded it would undoubtedly be unreasonable as it can certainly be argued that art does not always reflect life. On a personal level, of course, I acknowledge that many of these stereotypes are real and the media does reflect (in many cases) the attitudes of the public. I just don't think these assertions can reasonably be made in an encyclopedia.--Derco 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think my opinion will surpise anybody, but I have to agree with ShadowyCabal. In my mind this article will never be factual enough for an encyclopedia. There is no definitive test for what is or is not a stereotype, and thus this article will by necessity always be based on the editor's opinion. The contradictory nature of many of the listed stereotypes (for example that black people are either not macho or macho) seems to illustrate this problem. Furthermore, the "references" that this article cites are not reliable (at least not all of them are - the one with in the black stereotype section at least seems to be based on some sort of study). MANAA, for example, simply lists what it deems to be stereotypes. The Andrew Ma article does the same. These articles are based on nothing more than opinion. I for one don't see how these sources are any more reliable than if I made a website and linked to it. Also, individual movies are used often in the article but make poor evidence; for every movie that follows a stereotype, another may disprove it. Even if the sources are all made reliable, I still think that it is a leap on the editor's part to decide what constitutes a stereotype and what does not. In short, I do not see a way in which this article can ever be completely factual or NPOV, and therefore I think it should be deleted. For anyone who suggests keeping it, I would ask they explain how it could possibly be cleaned up into a suitable article as I for one do not see a way.--Derco 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stereotypes are subjective matters, true, and there will always be controversy over what is a stereotype. However, there is no rule that Wikipedia must shy away from controversies and that Wikipedia can only cover objective truths. The rule that applies, however, is that all sides of the controversy be given equal weight (WP:NPOV). There has been plenty analyzed and written about stereotypes, the task WP places upon itself is to represent what is out there. hateless 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I understand that Wikipedia can and does tackle issues that involve controversy. My point is that I feel that the very nature of this subject makes it ill-suited to tackle in an encyclopedia. Even if it were rewritten, I do not personally feel that all sides of this issue can or will be presented. Not to mention that this subject is, in my opinion, far too broad for an encyclopedia entry and, as someone mentions later on the page, is basically an invitation for use as a soap box. As far as I can see, almost every source that can be found on this topic will involve one person's opinion, which is no more valuable really than my opinion. So either the editor will have to decide what is or is not a stereotype, or the article will have to be reduced to "such and such says that the nerdy Asian is a stereotype." The former option (as the article is now, pretty much) seems to be in violation of original research or NPOV, and the latter would seem to involve generally irrelevent assertions that do not belong in an encyclopedia either. Forgive me if that did not make sense as I am having a hard time of communicating exactly what I want to.--Derco 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do Not Rewrite. An embarrassingly poorly authored and badly referenced article given the apparent seriousness of intent. I do not normally vote for delete based on simply an article's poor quality though, and I am not doing so here. In this case, I believe that the article is not recoverable even after a rewrite. Besides Derco's concerns which I share, I would argue that the subject "Ethnic Stereotypes in American Media" is much too large and unwieldy and awkward for a reasonable encyclopedia article. In addition, the subject implies that such ethnic stereotypes are both a special category in themselves and somehow inherent to American media production (perhaps a POV assertion of inherent racism?) , when it is more accurate to say that stereotypes and cliches of all kinds are inherently widespread in media production throughout all cultures and throughout history for just about every kind of situation and character. All these stereotypes are not created by media but are reflections of ideas held socially - negative, positive, more or less accurate or inaccurate etc. but struggling and in flux - that are reproduced and circulated in media. Neither Birth of a Nation or The Clansman are the root cause of racism against blacks in the US. Content about mass media representations of ethnic stereotypes belong in the articles on the the ethnic groups, which can properly approach the subject from the perspective of the social history of the group and identify when and where ethnic stereotypes have been really notable and important in reflecting the history of the group (and properly use media references as part of the evidence for these explanations) rather than the strange, befuddled approach of treating media stereotypes as significant in themselves and detached from social history that the afd article subject encourages. Also delete List_of_stock_film_roles_based_on_ethnic_stereotypes for similar reasons Bwithh 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Stereotype which has slim diversity in its cited resources. Ste4k 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs to be converted into a List instead. hateless 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is already a related list at List of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes (branched off from Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture I believe, and then merged with another list), which I think shows the problem with making this into a list. None of it is sourced, and it is completely subjective. In my opinion a simple list would be worse in some ways in that it removes even the element of explanation as to why something has been classified as a stereotype. At the very least it would be rather redundant with that list.--Derco 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I meant the article should be formatted into a list like List of professional wrestling throws, where there is encyclopedic text with each item. Frankly, I'm not impressed with List of stock film roles based on ethnic stereotypes other than the title of the article, perhaps the two articles can be merged in some way. hateless 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not happy with that article either (evident from my comments on its talk page, I think), which was part of my point. But I don't really see how making it like the List of professional wrestling throws would help either. It seems to me that it would keep all the problems it currently has but in list format.--Derco 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's one suggestion of many. I don't mean it will solve all its problems but to me it should be structured like that genre of Lists. hateless 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NPOV, is a soapbox, and advocacy, filed with sweeping generalizations which appear entirely original research. Making this a list would only make it shorter. Tychocat 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Bwithh and Tychocat. Frankly, I have no idea why I even thought about keeping this. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. However poorly constructed the article is, this is a very relevant and necessary topic. The concepts featured, however badly they are explained and related, are very real and it would be an unnecessary shame to have them unincluded in Wikipedia. And on a rather shallow note, this article is very old and relatively old. This may sound rather simple-minded, but if it is to be deleted, it would have been deleted a long time ago. Black-Velvet 12:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic with strong implications for society + references. --JJay 13:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but thoroughly rewrite. If it doesn't look like this is possible, we're probably better off without it. --Lukobe 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Derco reasons. --Dark Tichondrias 21:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would be willing to help give it a thorough re-write, please post on my talk page if you wish to discuss this. It's a valid subject, I've actually covered similar ground (stereotypes in the British media) in a geography class at GCSE level, this really is a valid topic. Please post on my talk page. --Sunholm(talk) 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very important/noteworthy topic. - CNichols 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Definately a valid topic. Why do so many people not want to acknowledge harmful stereotypes?Bethereds 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not suggest that those of us who have a problem with this article are implying that stereotypes do not exist.--Derco 23:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Important topic that no encyclopedia should be without. It needs work, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic needs to be kept. Deletion amounts to a whitewash.wongba 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an extremely important topic. It's true that stereotypes and racial issues can be subjective. However, they are valid intellectual topics worthy of an encyclopedia entry. If they weren't, why do so many reputable universities have entire departments and majors devoted to such issues? I agree this article in particular could use some reorganization and a lot of work. Perhaps each ethnic stereotype should have its own page (as each ethnic group's stereotypes probably have enough content to warrant separate articles, and the stereotyping isn't always so directly nor exclusively related to media necessarily) in addition to one from a media perspective. From doing research myself, I can assure you that there are many many reputable scholarly articles and books regarding racial stereotypes, and that stereotypes are not all just random qualities that random Wikipedians thought up haphazardly and pasted on this site. As for problems about neutrality, I would like to reiterate Wikipedia's suggestion of presenting all different points of view to achieve balance. I feel that deleting this article and therefore accessable information about this entire subject would be hasty and a loss for Wikipedia; I would instead advocate for putting in extra effort to rework the article to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards.Drenched 05:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I suggest that anything that can't be cited be removed. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some parts that should be addressed and modified, but otherwise this is an important topic. —Sesel 00:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the page should be kept up, but it definitely needs to be trimmed down a bit and re-worked on to a certain extent (as others have mentioned). Various regions and countries portray different ethnic groups within some or most of their media through stereotypes, but the North American media is way more international than almost any other region or country around the world (this aspect has to be repeated). These representations can and do very much have a crucial impact, on how "the self" sees "the other" and how the "the other" sees themselves. This article can also provide a better understanding of how these depictions shape and have shaped ethnic and race relations, in and between American society and the rest of the world today as well as throughout history. Furthermore, considering that the US (especially) is a world superpower, how much of its media portrays different ethnic groups (both inside and outside of its borders) is of extreme significance. Silver crescent 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character Clash

Seems to be advertising. Fails notability. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like a rip-off of Stratego or that thing with the sheep on ICQ. Tevildo 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fram 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, Ste4k 02:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia:Advertising. Black-Velvet 12:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per G4 by Gwernol. --Coredesat talk 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshock the Echidna

hoax - zero google hits, discussion supports that it is a hoax, many claims that it is a hoax, none claiming that is it valid Brian 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

It's definitely a hoax. I'm not one for spreading false information, I can verify it is 100% - You can tell right away by looking at the pictures of this "Sunshock the Echidna", they're badly edited. Plus the background of him is that typical of an unoriginal fan character. ----Lucky Winters 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an ultra-strong one at that. WP:HOAX. ~ Matticus78 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per mod. Should also delete Sunshock the Echidna (character), which is a copy of Sunshock the Echidna. -- VederJuda 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but a poor fancharacter edit with some n00b trying to pass off his lame character as an official one to buy some brownie points, yet fails drastically at it. And fails at life, too. Nalerenn 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Sunshock the Echidna (character) - they are both fairly obvious hoaxes with no googles. RN 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G1 or A7, fails WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, and WP:FICT. Sunshock the Echidna (character) was speedy deleted the same way, and this is a copy of that article. This article is also a bigtime vandal magnet, since the character doesn't exist. --Coredesat talk 21:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total nonsense.--Nydas 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. SM247^{My Talk} 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z_Games

Fails WP:Corp - Vanity Article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yomangani (talk • contribs) 2006-06-29 06:37:43 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:CORP big time, advertisement for their games. There's also some crystal-balling here about an unverifiable and possibly hoax console. --Coredesat talk 11:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly hopeless. Note to closing admin: don't forget to delete the images too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nearly Headless Nick 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VER Resources are self-published. Ste4k 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ste4k. Black-Velvet 12:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity Automated System

Originally deleted as PROD, reposted, tagged for speedy (but speedy doesn't allow for adverts). Delete as advertising. Petros471 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a horrible attempt at advertising, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 11:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM. Tevildo 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and The Prosperitittyy Automated System was deleted. Doesn't claim any notability. Recury 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extremely unimaginative advertising. And someone might want to alert the Spam patrol of this article and the user who created it. Black-Velvet 13:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Avi 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maayan Strauss

Weak Delete - [14] self promotion of nn student. --Haham hanuka 09:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has exhibited with others at the very exclusive Israel Museum. This was an exhibition with many participants (44). Participated in more activities with some exposure, yet as can be seen in the article, some verification issues remain. She has been AfDd at the Hebrew Wikipedia and the result was keep. [15] In the bottom line, I think she may be just notable, but will not be surprised if others think differently. gidonb 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [16] - 92 results including Wikipedia and it's mirrors. (seems like most of the results are from Wikipedia and it's mirrors). --Haham hanuka 11:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems imprecise. Out of 32 uniques mentions, 10 were Wikipedia related. gidonb 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was improperly listed for AfD, as were all other AfDs by this user. User has an incredibly rich history of dumping templates "pov", "afd", "expand", "cleanup", etc. or nominating himself for admin without doing any necessary work and has been warned about this fact by many users for I do not know how many times. This time I will fix the AfD, but next time I will list it for speedy deletion. gidonb 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems notable enough, but claims need to be sourced. Could use some cleanup for style and an added bio, too. -- Scientizzle 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How she can be notable if she has only 92 results of Google and most of them are from Wikipedia and it's mirrors? --Haham hanuka 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This seems imprecise. Out of 32 uniques mentions, 10 were Wikipedia related. gidonb 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 32 is enough?? --Haham hanuka 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - 32 is not much, however, 10 may be enough and 10,000 may be too little. It all depends what the articles that pop up have to say about the person or subject. gidonb 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there were many articles about her in the printed press. Was exhebited in Givonn, one of the 4 the most important galleries in Israel in solo exhibition and a curator of an exhibition. Haham hanuka is not in the art scene here. Shmila 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. been in Israeli press and world wide press. know and influential. Marina T. 14:16, 30 June
- I an afraid that User:Shmila is a sockpuppet of User:Marina T.. --Haham hanuka 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I won't fight a troll. Shmila 15:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Person does appear to be anything more than an art student. May potentially be one of a string of similar articles created that are not notable subjects. Kevin_b_er 08:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 170 hits in google (מעין שטראוס or מעיין שטראוס) not as haham hanuka claimed. Shmila 21:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rextology

Apparent hoax, only 2 Ghits and both are forum posts. NN or WP:NFT even if real. SM247^{My Talk} 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, rextology is as much of a hoax as christianity is (according to Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code') and is a parody of other religions, and so appeals to athiests that find other religions hard to believe, therefore giving rextology its over-the-top nature. Calm down and think of scientology as you read this. By the way, there are followers, just not that many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rextu (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 11:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User's only contribution outside creation/editing of the disputed article. SM247^{My Talk} 11:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Yet another joke religion. No assertion of notability. Tevildo 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come back when your mock religion is as well-known as Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rextology&action=edit

Edit this pageNawlinWiki 11:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, even the flying spaghetti monster follower is having a go. Yes, it is a joke religion, because it parodises other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rextu (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His noodly appendage reaches everywhere, so to speak. Rextology has no such widespread notability that would merit an article being devoted to it. It's not that its a joke religion that there is a problem with it, just that it is not a notable one. RAmen. SM247^{My Talk} 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only does it score just two Google hits, but as far as I can tell those two hits aren't even about the article subject (they're from an RPG game forum). Unencyclopedic to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FSM is well-known, clever and funny. This is, like so many other attempts, not. Fan1967 13:27, 29 June 2006 (UTc)
Delete - no thanks - --Charlesknight 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable hoax religion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another bogus religion. Is there a big celestial event coming up soon, with all these popping up all at the same time? Tony Fox (speak) 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we might as well keep it, considering this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit with their thoughts or beliefs no matter how unusual or bogus we think it may be. 11.51, 2 July 2006 (+10h GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.186.38 (talk • contribs)

Comment User's only contribution to Wikipedia is the above non-valid comment. SM247^{My Talk} 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page seems quite harmless to me and this Rextology vs. Flying Spaghetti Monster debate is plain stupidity. Deleting and criticising everything isn't going help Wikipedia in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tblockme (talk • contribs)

Comment Yes it will, because it weeds out nonsense like this. SM247^{My Talk} 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avi stein

Userfy (see editor's userpage) - as not notable anyway, vanity SM247^{My Talk} 11:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete A6 by Proto. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinksiism

Maybe we need a speedy tag for unknown joke religions, too. Exactly one ghit, an rss feed of this article. NawlinWiki 12:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Follow-up I agree with Tevildo; now speedy tagged. NawlinWiki 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. Positive assertion of non-notability, and I think a religion counts as a "group of people" or a "club" for the A7 eligibility criteria. Tevildo 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodah

Nonnotable neologism, couldn't find anything on Google for this usage (although it seems to be a word in Tagalog as well) NawlinWiki 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Tevildo 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N, WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus/Default keep. Merges may, as always, be brought about by talk page consensus. Xoloz 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Nixon

Non notable brother of famous person (only claim to fame is being the brother of...) Fram 12:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harold's illness (which also killed another brother) split the family in two, with Richard staying with his father, while his mother took Harold to Arizona for the weather. Harold's death freed up money for Richard to attend law school, which is described by Harold and Nixon's mother as Harold's "gift" to his brother. Plenty of info in biographies can be added to this stub in time. Jokestress 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO criteria and I personally don't accept the notion of conferred notability. Mention him at Richard Nixon as that is his primary "claim to fame".--Isotope23 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being the brother of a notable person doesn't make you notable. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any important information that may have influence Richard can be merged into his article. --Pboyd04 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep if redir, then to something like "Richard Nixon's family" because there is plenty of useful information here to overload the Richard Nixon page with info. It may be helpful to remember that Fram nominated all of the following: Edward Nixon, Arthur Nixon, and Harold Nixon. While we are at it, why don't we delete, redirect, or leave alone Donald Nixon (another brother), Francis A. Nixon (his father), and Hannah Milhous Nixon (his mother). All of them have articles similar to or even less significant than this one. -- Matthew 15:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Richard Nixon family, or something to that effect. RFerreira 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Frank or Hannah. PedanticallySpeaking 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 17:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Nixon

Non notable: only claim to fame is being the brother of Richard Nixon (see also AfD for Harold Nixon) Fram 12:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO criteria and I personally don't accept the notion of conferred notability. A mention could be added to Richard Nixon.--Isotope23 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arthur was the first of two brothers to die form TB. After his death the family split in two, with Richard staying with his father, while his mother took Harold to Arizona for the weather. Of the five brothers, Arthur is certainly the least notable because he died so young, but his death was a major event in Nixon's life, as evidenced by the biographical info already in the article. More to come if this gets a chance to grow. Jokestress 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being the brother of a notable person doesn't make you notable. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any important information that may have influenced Richard can be merged into his article. --Pboyd04 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep if redir, then to something like "Richard Nixon's family" because there is plenty of useful information here to overload the Richard Nixon page with info. It may be helpful to remember that Fram nominated all of the following: Edward Nixon, Arthur Nixon, and Harold Nixon. While we are at it, why don't we delete, redirect, or leave alone Donald Nixon (another brother), Francis A. Nixon (his father), and Hannah Milhous Nixon (his mother). All of them have articles similar to or even less significant than this one. -- Matthew 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Richard Nixon family, or something to that effect. RFerreira 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either Frank or Hannah. PedanticallySpeaking 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. This information must be covered somewhere. The argument that the main Lincoln articles are over-long, and that this serves as a split from them, is compelling; this argument does not require one to determine whether young E. B. Lincoln is notable in his own right, though he may well be. Xoloz 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Baker Lincoln

Non notable, being a son of Abraham Lincoln is only claim to fame Fram 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE KEEP. It's very important! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.179.234 (talk • contribs)
Keep Do keep this one, it's been edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.179.234 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: the two preceding comments are the only edits by this author except for edits to the AfD'es article just before and after these comments. They were added to the topo of this AfD. Fram 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To keep main Lincoln article succinct, section on his family should link to separate articles for each member. Childen who die young rarely have time to do something "notable" in their own right, but their deaths typically have a profound effect on the notable person discussed. Further, this child is named after a notable friend of Lincoln's, which also helps flesh out the Lincoln article without adding to the main article's length. Jokestress 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BIO criteria and I personally don't accept the notion of conferred notability. A mention could be added to Abraham Lincoln.--Isotope23 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jokestress. NawlinWiki 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jokestress.Englishrose 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see why every member has to have a very short article, when you could fill one reasonably-sized article about the whole of his family. Fram 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into some article about his family. Being the son of a notable figure doesn't automatically make you notable. Fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Coredsat (little to merge in this case); Eddie, Tad and Willie Lincoln should be mentioned in their parents' articles, but they are not notable in themselves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ya'll better get to deleting Tad and Willie too, then. Lotsa other presidents' family members' articles in need of removal, too-- I think Tyler alone had 15 kids (not including the disputed ones). At the very least, maybe you can come up with a precedent that would apply to all presidents, like a standardized family/genealogy page or something, that would allow these biographies a place on the project without cluttering up already overlong presidential articles. Richard Nixon's brothers are concurrently getting the axe, too, and I'll bet his mom and dad aren't far behind. I'd rather see y'all merge than delete information wholesale, but I seem to be in the minority here. Jokestress 01:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for Willie and Tad Lincoln, and for Nixon's family, a merge would be my preferred solution, but there's nothing to merge here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Same reason as Jokestress. --YankeeDoodle14 04:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As from Angus McLellan above, mention should be made in their parents' articles or in a posible article about his family (from users Coredesat / Fram). Being the offspring of a notable person doesn't automaticaly confer notability.--blue520 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. The stress caused on the father and the name of the father's friend are non-notable.--Panairjdde 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was as follows:

Premature closing due to Speedy Delete criteria G7 (author requests deletion). As this is information based on a fanfiction without verifiability (and no direct google hits outside of Wikipedia itself), and the author of the material discussed is demanding deltion, I believe this falls under speedy deletion easily. Moreover, the clear concensus is delete. — Deckill e r 06:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amelico

See also Xeaus (AfD discussion).

I have removed the text from this article, so no further damage can be done. I want the text to remain deleted. I understand that Wikipedia has certain policies about things like this. However, this is a different kind of situation. I want to protect the information in the article as much as possible. Roygene 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with Xeaus, Amelico is a creation of my own for my book. My brother wrote this article for the sole purpose of being a royal pain in the butt. Roygene 19:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as fandom. — Deckill e r 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this page been deleted yet! I demand that it be deleted at once. Alot of the material posted in this article was created by myself for a book I am writing and should never have been posted in the first place. At the very least, an administrator should block Caliente001 from editing. Roygene 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be fan fiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article purports to describe a fictional planet. It cites no sources at all and gives no clue as to the work of fiction involved. I can find no sources, either. There is nothing to prove that this article wasn't made up from whole cloth directly in Wikipedia. Whether it is fan fiction or not is irrelevant. The article is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree this should be deleted, I disagree that the article is in any way ambiguous as to its nature, it's clearly Star Wars related, and says so in the first sentence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize that it appears to be Star Wars. He incorporated my ideas into an article to make it appear to be Star Wars. The book I am writing is totally unrelated to Star Wars. Roygene 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that it is less important, from the points of view of Wikipedia editors, how and why your brother came to write this article, and more important that the only way for readers to verify the contents of this article would be for them to burgle your house and sneak a peek at your unfinished manuscript. The reason to delete this article is that it is unverifiable, not that it may or may not be a misrepresentation. After all, the fact that it is unverifiable encompasses the fact that the rest of us are unable to tell whether this article misrepresents a plot element of your book. Uncle G 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that its nature was ambiguous. I said that the article "gives no clue as to the work of fiction involved". Remember that the Star Wars universe comprises a rather large number of works of fiction. At the very least, an article on a planet in a fictional universe (especially one that has become a franchise) should give some indication of which works of fiction involve that planet. Without even that, let alone cited secondary sources, the article is unverifiable, as I said. Uncle G 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:V as it is apparently fan fiction.--Isotope23 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not a fanfiction site. Fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm like I'm trying to get the federal government to do something here. I requested that this article be deleted yesterday. I really couldn't care less what the techinical reasons are for deleting or not deleting this article, or why or why not it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that most of the material in this article was created by myself for personal reasons and, regardless of all this techinical Wikipedia crap that you guys have been talking about, should be deleted for the express reason that my work is not yet copyrighted. I'm not comfortable with the prospect of this material being posted on a web encyclopedia where thousands of people can see it. Now, whatever strings have to be pulled, pull them. I want this article deleted, or at least the text of the article removed. Roygene 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, since you're not the author of the article, you can't request speedy deletion. Unless it violates a criterion for speedy deletion, it has to go through the five-day AfD discussion before it's deleted (or kept, though at this rate that probably won't happen). I've reverted your edit so others can see the material originally on the article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G7(author requests deletion) As the nom's claimed brother (the original author) has gone and blanked it (or coaxed the password out of them, one of the two) Failing speedy, this thing is fan cruft and there's only ~600 g-hits for it, of which there should be more for an actual star wars planet/system considering the fan base, which makes it an entirely fake article. Kevin_b_er 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Avi 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Libsker

Delete - nn person, self promotion [17] --Haham hanuka 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete filmmaker with no IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDB not authoritative for filmmakers not from USA/UK/whatever. If "Circumcision" was aired on Channel 2, he's notable. If that weren't right, would have voted delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I live in Israel and I can tell that he is realy non-notable. [18] --Haham hanuka 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maran Chacham - can you confirm or deny the fact of the channel 2 airing? I don't live in Israel - but I can make up my own mind, thankyouverymuch. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know I'm not watching this channel. Anyway those movies were NN. --Haham hanuka 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many GHits spelling his name in Ivrit? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 349 [19] --Haham hanuka 08:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and can the closing admin be sure to zap all inbound links to this page. —Xezbeth 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable self-promotion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ari is a known director. his movie about circumcision is (with neomi aviv) the most important movie about this issue. the movie was censored and aired at last in the main channel. you can google the article from maariv daily. It was a big scandal in Israel. "haham Hanuka" is very problematic witness. I ask all of you to re-consider your vote. Shmila 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep partcipated in the international co-production market and also a known artist [20]. Marina T. 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I an afraid that User:Shmila is a sockpuppet of User:Marina T.. --Haham hanuka 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please either address your suspicions at RFCU - or keep them bottled up inside. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Please ask people in Hebrew Wikipedia about mr. hanuka. Shmila 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haham hanuka is banned from using the Hebrew Wikipedia. gidonb 13:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make to make an accusation of sockpuppetry, just go to RFCU to prove so. Don't get in a rough discussion over it. I have looked over this article quite a few times, and this is quite frankly one of the toughest calls I have seen on AfD. The nominator remarks that this page is about a non-notable person and possible vanity. I actually was curious about the comments made about the nominator and was quite surprised by what I had found. On Haham hanuka's talk page there are warnings regarding: personal attacks and just a bad history. Haham also accuses many users of being sockpuppets without any discussion or anything or pursuring the issue further[21]. This user does not seem to have what could appear to be a clean history involving pages of this topic or nature[22]. That is my rationale for thinking that this is a possible bad faith nom. Now back in regards to this article, I do believe that there is enough notability for this person, and I really don't think that vanity exists. The subject of the article has his importance asserted and it appears that importance, albeit not a grand scale, is notable enough for Wikipedia. The article states that he directed two documentaries, helped to form an academy, and co-edited a notable magazine. That seems to satisfy notability. I believe we can look at the expandability of this article and how it can endure. It can grow, and still not be a a crystal ball since the man has appeared to done enough for notability. Keep per the fact that creating two documentaries that went on Israeli television and were featured, thus making subject notable. Yank sox 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the nominator's block log. Yank sox 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am unable to verify the nominator's claim that this is self-promotion. Verifiable notability has been asserted by User:CrazyRussian and others, and only if these are checked and found to be false (I myself lack the ability to check) should the article be deleted. –Dicty (T/C) 11:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
247 results on Google in English, 349 in Hebrew. This article was written by Nimrod Kamer who is a friend of him. He writes many vanity articles on himself, his friends and his "films". --Haham hanuka 15:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to verify your claim that it was written by Nimrod Kamer with the information publicly accessible to me. If you can shine further light on this matter, please do so. Furthermore, even were your claim correct, I fail to see how an article on Ari Libsker written by Nimrod Kamer can constitute self-promotion. Lastly, the number of Google hits is not a notability criterion; rather, the governing notability criterion here is clearly expressed by User:CrazyRussian above. –Dicty (T/C) 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going solely on that Crazy Russian's word. He better be good for it. RFerreira 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 06:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Wallin

Vanity page only- delete!

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC quite markedly. Tevildo 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:MUSIC and some of it appears to be nonsense (the "impending marriage" part). NawlinWiki 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V, and the article looks like nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - the late completion of the AfD process likely led to the low participation here, so this AfD should not prejudice a second. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy (professional wrestling)

Uneccessary seperate article that could easily be noted in the wrestler's page. NegroSuave 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: while the information is bare, and has been noted by me before, the topic itself is worth noting as a notable stable within Ring of Honor. The lack of information makes it a stub to be sure, but deleting the article because it hasn'tbeen completed considering the many feuds the Embassy has been in is bizarre, especially as they are the top stable in Ring of Honor currently and have been a consistantly high ranked stable for years. --- Lid 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are notable within one particular fed which despite its audience is still mostly a regional federation as opposed to a national one. However I do not believe that they have contributed so much to the wrestling genre that they have risen above the notability of the wrestlers themselves. Stables form some last a very longtime. Stables Like The Four Horsemen Degeneration X and the New World Order are notable because they were all defining moments in wrestling history. Stables such as the Embassy, Special K, Da Hit Squad, etc are not notable despite their longevity. They fail to make a lasting impact on the genre despite ongoing feuds. NegroSuave 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The one "particular fed" is the second highest ranked indy fed in America behind TNA, and they don't even have a TV or PPV deal. RoH has been part of several famous, within the community, other stables such as Generation Next, Second City Saints, The Prophecy and the Rottweilers and all of those are notable as well within the community. This isn't a "well they weren't nWo or DX or Four Horsemen so delete it" as wikipedia chooses deletions off their own merits. While comparing to the mainstream this may seem insignificant, but on its own merits its a significant stable in a significant company in wrestling. --- Lid 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again i am not questioning ROH's influence. Many of the members of the aformentioned stables are aquaintences of mine. It is a fantastic organization with great wrestling, storylines, and the like. However I do not believe that the Embassy as a seperate entity deserves a page. Once again I am saying this as a fan and former collegue of many of the wrestlers in ROH (Many of them in Special K). ROH is fantastic to watch. However The Embassy as a group is not notable to transend the genre of wrestling and does not have the name recognition except among its fans which, despite your claims, are decidedly not as large a cross section of the average wrestling fan. The stable is not of anymore note than any of the other stables that have come and gone within independant wrestling. Otherwise I would be all over documenting the Rise and Fall of the Big Unit and all of its variations and permutations. This is not to say that this article doesn't belong anywhere, It just does not belong on its own seperate page.

Keep: A notable stable in a notable organization.

↪Lakes (Talk) 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake thank you for correcting that 155.91.45.232 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC) previous comment by NegroSuave 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England tests

Strong delete. This has been under <<context>> for ages and no one can be bothered with it. It is a pointless list that will never be developed because of its massive scope. In any case, the title is wrong as Tests in this context begins upper case. A waste of space. --GeorgeWilliams 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrongly named, too short, impossible to maintain. Sam Vimes 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't agree more. --Jack 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On its merits, Delete, but it would be stupid to delete this as unencyclopedic and yet keep the recently saved Eastern Suburbs 1912 Season. Do we really think domestic Rugby League results are more notable than Test Cricket results? -- GWO

Nope, which is why we have articles like History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889). No need to duplicate information. Sam Vimes 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I said delete. But it doesn't explain why people voted for the survival of Eastern Suburbs 1912 Season. If we extend that to every team and every season, we'll have an astonishing amount of duplicate information. -- GWO

Neutral (for now). I think this article has a lot more chance of being useful and maintainable than the existing "History of Test Cricket" articles. If we're going to have detailed descriptions of the matches, as in the "History" articles, a summary page like this will be more-or-less essential. But, it may be argued that the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. Tevildo 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was the page I was looking for. How can this be difficult to maintain, once it's up to date, you only need to maintain it, after every result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.55.147 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico Insurance

This article has been listed for deletion twice because of advertising content, twice removed by the original poster of the article, the only reason for it's existance is to advertise "Mexico Insurance." It would have been better to have been a speedy, but I am told that wasn't correct for advertising (see history). --Richhoncho 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said this website has very useful tips for mexico. I have used tghis site many time. Check out http://www.mexbound.com/before-you-go.html for all the info. 21:49, 28 June 2006 72.130.150.142

Added details unsigned article --Richhoncho 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V, and content of the article as it stands has little to do with the title. Tevildo 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is rather travel-guidey, which means it fails WP:NOT. "Mexico uses a Napolianic Code which is you are guilty until proven innocent." Yes, very useful tips. Recury 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there may be a shred of useful info in here but it belongs in the main article on Mexico. NawlinWiki 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant ad, fails WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seat24

Advertising, probably non-notable as well Arker 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Tevildo 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Sons of the Desert. Rob ert 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons Of The Desert

Delete - I can't really figure out a way to re-write it which will make it remotely useful. BigHaz 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sons of the Desert, the Laurel and Hardy movie (and Delete thus the current contents of this page). Fram 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Fram. Perhaps we may need to change the dab-link on the Laurel and Hardy article, which, at the moment is a redlink to a band, as well. Tevildo 13:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fram, though I believe the international Laurel and Hardy fan club also uses this name. 23skidoo 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fram. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sons of the Desert per Fram. The L&H fan club does indeed use this name, its article is here: The Sons of the Desert. --DaveG12345 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted not by me - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alaska - Whitehorse

This concept was not yet ready for Wikipedia but was put there prematurely in excitement it is hoped that there will soon be a University of Alaska Whitehorse but a formal proposal has not be created nor as the University of Alaska formed any sort of statement varifying the possibility of its existance in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska+yukon (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ifnord 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per db-author. Nominator is the author of the article. Fan1967 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omeasity

Hoax & Orignal Research. No Google hits at all. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 12:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ifnord 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Srikeit, Wikipedia is not for ideas you pulled out of your ass, et cetera WilyD 15:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just nonsense. DrunkenSmurf 16:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:HOAX, WP:NFT, WP:NOT... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/default keep. Xoloz 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Nixon

Non notable, company gives 13 Google hits, being ~~son~~brother of notable person (Richard Nixon is not a reason to be included here: see also AfDs for Arthur Nixon and Harold Nixon Fram 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A mention on Richard Nixon's article would be more than sufficient. Ifnord 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stub still needs plenty of information on the finance scandal involving Nixon and Charles G. Rebozo. Jokestress 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as subject falls short of WP:BIO, weak because of the Watergate mention, but this could be covered better at Richard Nixon or Watergate. I just don't see compelling evidence he meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Anything useful can be merged to Richard Nixon or Watergate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep if redir, then to something like "Richard Nixon's family" because there is plenty of useful information here to overload the Richard Nixon page with info. It may be helpful to remember that Fram nominated all of the following: Edward Nixon, Arthur Nixon, and Harold Nixon. While we are at it, why don't we delete, redirect, or leave alone Donald Nixon (another brother), Francis A. Nixon (his father), and Hannah Milhous Nixon (his mother). All of them have articles similar to or even less significant than this one. -- Matthew 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Richard Nixon family, or something to that effect. RFerreira 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep because of role in Watergate. PedanticallySpeaking 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Sudoku

A contested prod. Rationale was: "self promo". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan the Security Guard. The article Nimrod Kamer was deleted three months ago [23] (Liberatore, 2006). 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete self promotion on NN person created by a troll. --Haham hanuka 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete ⌠Yellow up⌡ 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, self-promotional nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. enough support for his existence and impact 14:05, Marina T. 30 June 2006 (UTC)
delete nn gidonb 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shmila 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable enough to be in a newspaper and on TV. I'd like to see the picture of the half naked guy replaced with the picture of Nimrod's face. And I'm not sure the tone of the article is in proper (non)fictional context (if you catch my drift; isn't there a template tag for contextual issues?). Xaxafrad 06:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Why isn't there a Talk:Captain Sudoku? Did somebody violate the AfD procedure? Xaxafrad 06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - changed and modified according to Xaxafrad conditions. Marina T., 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not noteable at all, everything can get a newspaper article. ⌠Yellow up⌡ 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be on IMDB, and the creator's article was deleted awhile back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article for a Sudoku teacher? Is it a joke or something, a trivia item, or what? Noon 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a movie therefor it is not in the IMDb. And for Noon - it's and alleged Sudoku fictional character that was widely explored in all Israeli big newspapers. (read the article). Marina T. 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article and tried to understand what the hell this "captain" is. You say he is a fictional character, but not in a movie. The article says he gives Sudoku lessons, but you say he is fictional. You say he is "explored in all Israeli big newspapers", but I can see only a trivia reportage in a minor section of NRG. Please give me a break; this is utter nonsense, or a big joke. Noon 17:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. If the creator wants to have it userfied, he or she can contact me. -- Kjkolb 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anand's razor

Original Research I can find no external reference to Anand's razor. I've left a message on the discussion page and on the creator's talk page. After a week, neither have been responded to. Ucanlookitup 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At best an engineering in-joke. Tevildo 13:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sort of falls under WP:NFT as an inside joke. Fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as joke. I did think of Occam's Razor immediately on seeing the name but that doesn't mean it is relevant. Ansell 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete: similar concepts must have many names, but not notable individually. Stephen B Streater 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with no redirect as per Pascal.Tesson. -- Kjkolb 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Parker Meridien

Hotels should be at Wikitravel. No claim to notability Fram 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Important enough of a hotel to keep around, but it needs expansion and context. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheap redirect to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, the parent MNC. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no showing of significance whatsoever. Very few hotels should be on WP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable hotel. We're not Wikitravel. Hotels can't be transwikied to Wikitravel through AfD, so the decision is all that much easier to make. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing really to transwiki. I have no problem with deleting the history, but a redirect should be left. This is a somewhat well-known individual hotel that probably gets its fair-share of Google searches and redirecting to the above link could be good for bringing in traffic. It would also give someone a good excuse to epand the section of the article that deals with Le Meridien Hotels. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. While it is true that the page could be redirected to Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (which owns the Meridien brand) it has no particular notability. Also note that hotels in large cyber-connected cities will indeed tend to have major presence on Google but that is not indication of particular notability. Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol & Cheryl

Looks like an elaborate hoax to me, no Google hits, and no mentioning of the one music hit that was produced by artists under that name. For more evidence see Talk:Carol & Cheryl. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - absolutely nothing in the article checks out on Google. A group with an 80s club hit would have some internet presence at least, as would the record label, the manager, the hit record, the club, etc, etc. Thryduulf 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete silly hoax, as evidenced by the goofy names: "James Buggerball", "Bobby Orgasmo" (probably a pun on Bobby Orlando, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had tagged it first for speedy delete, but changed it because according to WP:CSD hoaxes should (generally) go through AfD instead. I suppose this one can be classified as obviously ridiculous though :). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. A Carol & Cheryl appears on Allmusic, but not for any of this. --DarkAudit 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete Buggerballs NawlinWiki 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a nonsensical hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page they refer to in Talk mentions a UK TV show done in 1988. Has anyone found any evidence to back that up? --DarkAudit 02:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Naconkantari 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggle

A single line on a fabric softner. I cannot see how this product is notable enough to be an encylopedia article Mark S (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Yeah, the article is very short and almost an advertisement. But it's a nationally-advertised product with a well-known mascot. "Snuggle"+"fabric softener" gets 35,000 total and 700 unique Google hits, which is more than the great majority of things with their own articles. -- Kicking222 13:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Extremely well-known consumer product, and the "Snuggle bear" is a popular advertising icon. I get 362,000 Google hits for Snuggle +fabric, and a further 262,000 for Kuschelweich. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Over here in England we don't have it, so we will never have heard of it (hence the AFD). A product like this will get a lot of google hits (because lots of places sell it) but does that make it something worthy of an encylopedia article? --MarkS (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is copious secondary source material on a subject, then it a legitimate topic for an encyclopaedia article. If, in future, you apply the WP:CORP criteria when making deletion nominations for products, instead of the "I have never heard of it" criterion, you will be more likely not to go astray. The question that you should be asking and answering is whether any of those Google Web search results are anything more than company press releases or mentions in product catalogues. Uncle G 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not having heard of something is an appalling reason to nominate it for VfD. For example, if I look at Category:Nobel Prize in Physics winners, I only see maybe four or five names I recognise out of hundreds. Yet all are obviously notable and none should be deleted or AfDed. At the very least, it couldn't hurt to check with someone who lives where the product is sold to determine if it's a household name or not. Besides that, it is sold in the UK, just under a different name (Comfort). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
    - Not having heard of it was NOT part of the reason for nomination. It was part of my reponse to a response. A search for "Snuggle" on my version of Google (UK) reveals nothing on the first three pages. A search for "snuggle fabric softener" does bring up 37,000 hits. However, the first hit is nothing to do with the product, some of the next hits are Snuggle but not all. Furthermore, the the responses are for amazon or grocers rather than the an article about the product itself. On these criteria it is not getting that many google hits and more importantly it is not getting articles about the products (the hits are "sales" pages rather than "articles about" pages). On my research it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP and so I nomintated it as a candidate for deletion. The problem here is that the product is US rather than worldwide. So when a non-US editor searches for it, it doesn't show up. The only way to guard against this is to search all local version of google when checking any article. In this case the product is obviously widely distributed in the US (altough this doesn't meet WP:CORP) - if it was described as a US product then I wouldn't have touched it in the first place. I guess the best solution is that products should be labelled with their relevant geographic region so that editors familar with that region can decide on the way forward. --Mark S (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely distributed household products household products are certainly worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wickethewok 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets google news hits, widely known brand - et cetera WilyD 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly prevalent brand in the U.S. It's as worthy of keeping as products sold elsewhere in the world and not available in the U.S. (like Marmite for example... and as a side note, I think the Snuggle would probably taste better on toast).--Isotope23 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, well-known product. NawlinWiki 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, definitely a well-known product. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Danny Lilithborne 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a speedy candidate. I'm shocked it was only one line at the start of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently all the effort went into the Snuggle bear article instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just went ahead and boldly merged Snuggle bear to Snuggle... both articles were short, had somewhat redundant information, but had enough differences that it just made sense to combine them and leave a redirect at Snuggle bear. Article looks more complete now.--Isotope23 14:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks better now. - CNichols 01:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Thryduulf 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slap Jacks

non-notable band. the article itself states that they have yet to release a single album Travelbird 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slap with a Delete per article the band is a few months old and have not released anything yet. No evidence of notability suggested in article. DrunkenSmurf 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Tevildo 13:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsa Yoga

This article was marked for speedy deletion as a repost of the deleted Hamsa yoga (small 'y') - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamsa yoga.

Although this version is similar to the previous one, it contains references which to my mind deserve being checked out rather than speedily deleted. No vote. Thryduulf 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the added references made no mention of Hamsa Yoga but either Yogananda's Hong Sau technique of concentration (note, not a Yoga but a technique within Yoga), the use of Soham mantra, or Hans Yoga, which is a completely different Yoga. The titles of the references were altered (doctored) to appear that they are about Hamsa Yoga. Muktananda's book I Am That : The Science of Hamsa, for example, is about Hamsa (gander), a generic word with spiritual significance, and does not mention "Hamsa Yoga" at all. I have that book. - Terminator III
Keep - References to 'Hamsa Yoga' as a form of pranayam (see talk page). This one finds it truly unbelievable that Terminator cannot open his eyes. It is clear that Delete below is the same person. Creating user names just to boslter the voting process. The references were not 'commentary' at all. Tha original article on 'Hamsa yoga' has very LITTLE resemblance to the present article. 'Hamsa Yoga' is a very traditional form of pranayama as shown in the references and articles that show its relation to 'So Ham'. Who says that only traditional forms of yoga have to be in Wikipedia anyway? It is an EDUCATIONAL resource! 213.106.1.25 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]
- Nope. Not the same person. This page is for votes and short comments. References do not belong on it, they belong in the article. Gurunath 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one of the traditional forms of yoga, this page seems a complete hash of disparate information. Gurunath 03:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terminator III and Gurunath. I suggest the material be moved into pranayama and jyotisha respectively and this article should become a disambiguation page. ---Baba Louis 15:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Cliche

Notablity concerns. Was proded prod was remove so I listed it here. BJK 13:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Podcast is on a major podcast network, has advertisers, is featured on satelite radio. It is notable enough I believe. Many listeners in the 10's of thousands. Also note user is again known for tagging incorrect articles reffer to user talk page User talk:Whispering - Mike Beckham 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I get one news hit for it, which is not an article about the show, but merely mentioned advertising on podcasts in general. Thus, its not notable, unencyclopaedic, possibly vanity, et cetera. WilyD 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to the article it has had one advertiser and has been featured on satellite radio once. Recury 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Recury. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, No it has consistent sponsor now from Earthlink as being part of the PodShow network. - Mike Beckham 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As I said in past posts, sponsorship, radio and PodShow network. 10's Thousands of listeners warrants the article - Mike Beckham 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sure, why not? - Paul Tevis
Delete nn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.104.92 (talk • contribs)
Delete Doesn't appear notable enough. We need to be really careful before accepting articles about Podcasts. Although this is more credible than a podcast produced by a 14 year old, or someone, the more articles we have about podcasts mean that people are going to think that it's OK to add articles about theirs. That preventive measure is not grounds for deletion, though. My reason is notability. The JPS ^{talk to me} 00:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Unfortunately you have no clue as you have not read my reasonsing. It is notable, more so than most other podcast articles on here and deserves a article. Also: Vanity? I am not associated with the program just a writer here wishing to expand articles on media. - Mike Beckham 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 203.206.241.221

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Martin

Vanity page David Humphreys 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, so need to hang around here. JPD (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Speedy (CSD A7). I have tagged it. Fan1967 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manzanita Village

Not important besides do we want to list every single residence hall? grazon 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I think the notable person living there makes it important... And yes Residence halls are used in many articles:

Harvard: List of Harvard dormitories, Adams House (Harvard University), Dunster House, Eliot House, Kirkland House, Leverett House, Lowell House, Mather House, Quincy House, Winthrop House, Cabot House, Currier House, Pforzheimer House.

UCSB: Francisco Torres, Manzanita Village.

UCB: Bowles Hall

UCI: Vista del Campo

And those are just the few places I bothered to look. I think this is very worth keeping, but I would look into the idea of maybe starting a project where all the dorms of a particular University are all on one page, such as, List of Harvard dormitories. --Dakart 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manzanita Village is not actually a "single residence hall". Its actually a community made up of 17 dorms, a resource center, and a dining commons. Merging the information into a list would probably be okay but I do not think it is nessessary. No reason to delete this, just clean it up a bit. —L1AM (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus as the initial nomination was improperly formatted. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; college dorm. No evidence the article will be of any interest out the university. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The act of simply being a dorm is not automatically notable. wikipediatrix 15:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its just a college dorm, FFS. -- GWO
Delete no compelling reason to retain articles on individual dormitories unless they have some sort of historical or architectural significance.--Isotope23 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. BJK 16:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dorms with no historical significance are not notable outside their universities. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete votes. The fact that a professor at the same university lives there should have no bearing on the notability of this dorm. --Metropolitan90 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by user:Gwernol - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zatch Bell! The Card Battle

Nonsense David Humphreys 15:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The author just removed the AfD tag - it has now been re-inserted David Humphreys 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A1, no context; G4, recreated content. Certainly not AFD material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A1 and G4. --DarkAudit 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: article was speedied. –Dicty (T/C) 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The claims to notability here are shaky - iMDB entries are, to quote iMDB itself, "submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you" which makes getting in it trivial by our definition, but they haven't been sufficiently challenged in this discussion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Tuna

Delete - nn movie. self promotion. --Haham hanuka 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tychocat 21:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The movie seems to be verifiable, but this isn't the article for it. Self-promotion. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's the first Israeli mockumentary, broadcasted in the biggest channel. Shmila 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Mirnamirna 15:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me this is not a sockpuppet :) --Haham hanuka 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an indy movie and a group of indian art/film students creating a string of articles about themselves. Kevin_b_er 08:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion of nn movie. Noon 10:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a known and very successful movie - and also historical one - considered to be the first full length mockumentary film in Israel. Was screened in various theaters and festivals. Also available in the biggest Israeli movie store - The Third Ear [24]. And widely regarded in the Hebrew Wiki [25]. Marina T. 16:43, 01 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Nothing wrong with the movie! Haham hanuka keep s bringing Israeli movies/moviemakers to AfD - what's the deal? Nobody has yet to demonstrate why they think it's "self-promotion" - and what's a NN movie with an IMDB listing?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crzrussian (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep' per above, I really haven't seen a solid reason for deletion. There doesn't appear to be notability, and it has an IMDb listing, which covers good ground. Yank sox 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, self-promotional issues can be resolved through our editing process, notable enough otherwise. RFerreira 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is verifiable and a notable first of a kind film Yuckfoo 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Sabag

Delete - nn person [26]. self promotion. --Haham hanuka 11:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Can't verify vanity page, but definitely nn. Tychocat 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doron Sabag is the biggest art patron in Israel (international art patron) and has a company with 600 million shekels revenues every year (140 million dollars), the biggest human resource company in Israel. He is so important that there was an exhibition that criticize him. is this a self promotion? he got 447 Google hits, his company 700 hits. Please ask someone in the Israeli finance or art community Shmila 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete string of vantiy pages for 3 or so different people, the running line is "In 2006, Minshar gallery in Tel Aviv, exhibited "Doron" (Curators: Joshua Simon, Roy Arad and Maayan Strauss), exhibition that deals with Art and Labour rights." Which a group of users claims that 44 people went to which makes the event notable for these articles. (An art exhibition, that only 44 people attended? Doesn't not seem special to me.) Can't confim "CEO of big company" claim. Kevin_b_er 08:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. User targetting Israeli biographies at random or something? ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep check this [27] and others on google [28]. there is no question here. Marina T. 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Jul. 4, '06 [18:17] <freak|talk>

What Really Happened

Note: There was a short period of time when this page was not properly linked from the main Articles for Deletion page. I think it's fixed, now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

What Really Happened was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-28. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/What Really Happened.

As I have said on the previous deletion discussion, personal attacks on contributors are strictly forbidden. This is your only warning. Anyone attacking another contributor, anonymous or registered, will be blocked from editing. Thanks Naconkantari 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is not that notable and should not be included in an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of every website on the planet. Google and yahoo searches only came up when using Site name or several of the varaions (such has what happened or Really happened ect.) Aeon 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that you are nominating this site almost exactly one month after it was nominated for deletion on the same grounds of it allegedly being non-notable. I further hope you realize the human resources that get tied up in a process like this that could otherwise be spent in productive editing and expansion of Wikipedia. I wonder if there are any instruments implemented to annul these types of AfD nominations that in my opinion are frivolous. __meco 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, Aeon1006, how and why you think that this web site does not satisfy the WP:WEB criteria. "This website is not that notable" is not sufficient by itself. How, specifically, does the website fail to satisfy the criteria? Uncle G 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it necessary to quote from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations (my highlighting):
In general, articles that have survived a nomination for deletion should not be immediately renominated, unless a discussion had no consensus and a marked lack of contributors. There is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations.
Does Aeon1006 feel that the previous deletion process suffered from a marked lack of contributors? __meco 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speed for Aeon, but the previous AfD was closed as No consensus. And this isn't an immediate renomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus means the article survived anyway. And, how many articles' nomination for deletion happens twice in 30 days? --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain because I feel that this article should not have been renominated so quickly from my initial nomination. I was planning on a renom in a few months when I had a better argument. --Strothra 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I certainly can't speak for Aeon and I don't really accept non-notable as a reason for deletion, but looking through the first AfD I don't see how What Really Happened meets any of the WP:WEB criteria. There was an attempt to justify it per WP:WEB#2, but those awards are very minor "site of the day" type awards. In my opinion they don't qualify per #2. There also was an attempt to justify it per WP:WEB#1 essentially arguing that WRH met the criteria per 11 published interviews. Unfortunately, these interviews were bittorrent, Google Video, and Alex Jones' prisonplanet website. None of these qualify as non-trivial. 3 more NewsMax cites were added, but none of these articles were about WRH, they were either mentioned in passing or linked at the end of the article. Obviously this was no consensus upon closing, so opinion was split, but I personally see no credible evidence or argument provided that this site meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a far better rationale than the one given in the nomination. Thank you. Uncle G 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence is currently provided that the site meets WP:WEB. Article is also very POV as it stands, although I accept that's not grounds for deletion. Tevildo 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment to above I have been trying to reply for a few minutes but have been unable to due to about a half dozen edit conflicts. In review of WP:WEB I found I was in error. Thank you Uncle G for pointing this out to me. And is response to the AFD renom I thought a month was enough time to renom. If this is also in error then please let me know so I can avoid making that mistake again. Aeon 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC) In retrospect I feel I was justified to submit this for AFD (Not only reading some of the comments but seeing has how the site is mostly a soapbox) Aeon 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in poor judgment, and, as you can read in the quote above, it actually violates the criteria for hasty renomination. Consider that last time this article was up for deletion a huge number of people spent their time (the entire debate actually made up 97kb) on it, and now you're asking all of them to repeat that exercise. __meco 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Aeon, it only violates your reading of the criteria meco based on the bolded text above. It specifically states that there is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations... which essentially leaves it open to interpretation by individual editors. There is no violation here, just a difference in opinion as to what constitutes an immediate renomination. As for the effort an AfD takes, the previous AfD is linked so hopefully editors participating can read through the article, the previous AfD, and arguments here before rendering a well-thought out opinion. I don't see anything wrong with a healthy debate about an article's merits, particularly when the previous AfD ended without consensus being reached.--Isotope23 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this nomination clearly violates the criteria for an immediate renomination. I will concede the opinion that it is valid if some will argue that it is NOT an immediate renomination, which I consider it to be. __meco 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... nothing wrong with a difference of opinion!--Isotope23 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fair enough, And it was my interpretation on the Deletion Policy, perhaps there should be an review of the renom part of the policy to address this issue so it doesn't come up again. But that is a topic for a differnt discussion. Aeon 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per nom (aside from the broken links and/or redirection, making edit not work). (Reinserted vandalised text, but voted again below.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted the moves which broke editing; perhaps some admin can complete the reversion to the proper linkages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Halbared 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. We need to either change the criteria or follow it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinion with regards to changing criteria? __meco 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if anything WP:WEB should be more stringent. Because many of us are on line a lot, there may be a natural tendency to exaggerate the importance of a website. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not disagree. __meco 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isotope23. I appreciate Meco's concern for my use of time. Tychocat 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOV and fails WP:WEB (Alexa ranking of 10,711, but the site doesn't seem to have won any notable awards). Most blogs aren't notable enough for inclusion here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article itself does not fail WP:NPOV, and has been markedly improved, particularly with regards to references, since the most recent AfD vote. I suspect bias against the site and its content is playing a role here; the site is notable. Earpol 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in that the site is notable. However, the question of whether Wikipedia's criteria are capable of establishing this remains. The problem might lie with Wikipedia's current set of criteria. __meco 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Fact: Google Test results in about 387,000 references for WhatReallyHappened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.186.218 (talk • contribs) 01:21, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has only made one edit outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.

Considering the fact that I and many many more people visit WRH (intentionally, as opposed to redirect or Googling) - AND, after clicking on so many of the links (in the Wikipedia site) under the heading of WRH, it appears to me that WRH is actually much more "Notable" than this site with all the psuedo intellectual arguing about the nuances of the criteria for "notability" and deletion - AND, that, just like so many other things in Wikipedia (which really Could be a good idea, IF there were ANY control over the FACTUALNESS of the information - AND a restriction of the ability of axe-grinders and special interests, i.e., Zionists, as an excellent example, (and other people who have Obviously never even bothered to actually look up the dictionary or encyclopedic definition of the word "Semite" in ALL it's meanings!) to just jump in and edit and erase whatever they simply don't like. SO, it is my opinion that WRH deserves to be in this compilation of accurate - and inaccurate - information website just as much as "Wikipedia" itself does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.235.6.178 (talk • contribs) 01:42, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Most of this users edits are to this AfD. User in question only has a few edits to on eother article. Aeon 06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support, keep: whatreallyhappened is a regular daily source of information and deserves to be kept in WikipediaMirrorsoul 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.

Keep: This is ridiculous, renominating articles for deletion at the drop of a hat every month or so, and besides WRH is very notable site well known and frequently linked to. It may annoy some here who don't like the site, but well bang I don't like the US government either, so maybe we should nominate that article for deletion too??? KEEP. Of course. 61.205.97.120 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Aaron[reply]

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website, while a bit focused on Israel, which is the reason why some people want to have it deleted, is just a set of links to very informative news articles. It is and has been a key resource for researchers. To delete it from Wikipedia is pure politics and frankly, silly.[End]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.71.69 (talk • contribs) 02:00, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It seems obvious to me that a political bias motivates some who want to delete this site, else why the harping and bitching about it? "What Really Happened" provides access to controversial issues, many contemporary and some within the past several years. This is not the type of site that the Wikipedia should suppress.24.1.11.49 02:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has only edited one article outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This note is irrelevant, the writer is still entitled to express his opinion without being subject to what is in essence an ad homonym attack. Please show greater respect for freedom of speech and stop editing other people's comments, since this comment in its previous form was deleted.24.1.11.49 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this time it might be prudent to take note of the fact that information about this second nomination of What Really Happened was posted on whatreallyhappened.com at 01:05 (UTC) under the headline "Wikipedia tries to delete What Really Happened a second time" linking directly to this page, and with additional text:
Despite the previous public response, Wikipedia is once again trying to move the article on What Really Happened towards deletion. Winston Smith, call your office.
__meco 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, thanks for the full disclosure meco. Looks like Puppetfest is about to start.--Isotope23 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, looks like a puppetfest initiated re-nomination for deletion.24.1.11.49 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is wrong with Wikipedia? Have you folks gone mad? I suggest that perhaps it is Wikipedia that is non relevent, if you are too small for the likes of WRH. I have visited WRH for years, and have learned so much. Basically the site posts news - and truth. but I have to wonder about Wikipedia, are you trying to re-write history? KEEP. § joyce 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Though I do sympathize with the frustration felt by avid readers of What Really Happened. I would like to express my take on the reason why this is happening (again) which I believe is threefold: 1) It is true that the article about What Really Happened lacks credible sources that would testify to the notability of the site to "someone who isn't acquainted with the site", i.e. most Wikipedia contributors. 2) Wikipedia's criteria for notability of a web site (which can be read at WP:WEB) may in fact be deficient and in need of revision. 3) True, What Really Happened is shunned by most mainstream outlets which leads to it not getting the publicity other sites would have received all things being equal. Apart from that, while I have your attention, I might entice you to read Wikipedia's quite good article about conspiracy theory and urge all that come here basically to fight the nomination for deletion to become active contributors to the Wikipedia project. __meco 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. whatreallyhappened has some original content as well as being a collection of the current batch of links pertinent to the views of the site editor. It is the "Go-To" place for updates on the unprecidented changes taking place in the American way of life that the neo-conservatives, and likely the fanatic zionists are bringing about. The Dog that Did not Bark, and The Crime of the Century are just two pieces of original content on the site. Have you read them? You'll have to read 1984 to know who Winston Smith is.--112358 02:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a silly politically motivated call for deletion. Wikipedia has links to many similar political commentary web sites: frontpagemag.com, discoverthenetworks.org, antiwar.com. Many many such sites are documented - because they exist out there in the world and are relevant. This is part of a concerted effort by zionists and their supporters to have wikipedia reflect their POV. Its part of a project to remove not only whatreallyhappened, but also a whole list of similar anti-zionist political commentary web sites. --rafael
Keep Even though there was no consensus, and the last keep was a default keep, I still feel enough unique people contributed to the last discussion that we should not open this up again. 24.54.83.216 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:WEB. GassyGuy 03:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may choose to do as you will but the truth is zionism is losing its battle to suppress and obscure the truth. Wikipedia is the last place I would visit to obtain investagatory information on ANY subject. This site is no different than the textbooks used in American schools. Superficial, skewed and absolutely biased. Sorta like Dragnet with a twist, "History has beed altered to protect the guity", but not for much longer. As an educator I can assure you that the students that go through my class are given perspective, depth, and content in order to FULLY educate them as to the events that are taking place around them.~ksdrover~
KEEP– This page is a relly good source of information, news that you can't see in any other MSM outlet, so it keep your info in balance. Unique and controversial. Franco17 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhatReallyHappened in Wikipedia.

WhatReallyHappened is within WP:NPOV, because it is essentially a news service website which happens to include short descriptions of the meaning of the news articles linked to in the opinion of the site administrator. Like any website, there is an option for reader comments, however this option clearly isn't the primary focus of the site in form or function. The readers comments section, a tiny link on the left hand column, has no flash and little color. Obviously the administrator doesn't consider reader comments the primary focus of his site, and the reader cannot mistake the site for that purpose. WhatReallyHappened is not "blog-like" because the primary highlighted information, prominently displayed throughout the majority and in the center of home page, is composed of links chosen by the site administrator which are not found in the mainstream media, which is the stated and obvious purpose of the site: provide links to articles and information not found in the mainstream media, along with original content and characterizations of the external information by the site administrator, which the reader is free to reject or accept in relation to the article or information presented.

When a member of the mainstream media scoops another publication, that particular media wishes to present information not found in the other media. By consistently highlighting articles not typically found in what is considered the mainstream media, WhatReallyHappened consistently scoops that media, or any other media not reflecting the information. Further, if Free Republic isn't deleted for failure to adhere WP:NPOV, logically it isn't possible to delete WhatReallyHappened for failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, because no website violates WP:NPOV like Free Republic, and Free Republic is decisively "blog-like".

Next, the primary purpose of WhatReallyHappened as a significant source of unusual news links significantly disables much application of WP:WEB, because the guts of WP:WEB largely depend upon definitions fulfilled by the same media WhatReallyHappened is not designed to represent. What would the charge of the Web be then, if WhatReallyHappened were represented in claimed "reliable" media, that WhatReallyHappened is a mainstream puppet? Reliable media like The Nation or Mother Jones magazines aren't referred to in most media, heck, the Congressional Budget Office isn't even represented properly, with its accurate numbers prepared by dutiful civil servants held up in comparison to politically motivated numbers provided by private companies like the Heritage Foundation.

Yes, the move for renomination for deletion is in violation of standards of reasonableness in relation to not allowing immediate renomination. It isn't really arguable except on hypertechnical grounds, the next afternoon after the previous nomination for deletion failed could be said not to be immediate, if one wants to be hypertechnical. To a reasonable person there is obviously a campaign to remove WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, and, to a reasonable person, the nomination for deletion is itself in violation of WP:NPOV because of that campaign, once a reasonable person has reached the conclusion that the renomination violates the immediacy rule. The criteria for renomination for deletion should be that some change has occurred in relation to WhatReallyHappened since the last discussion for deletion which qualifies for another motion for deletion. We're entitled to hear what new information has come to light since the last discussion which qualifies WhatReallyHappened for a new motion for deletion.

WhatReallyHappened is a notable website, first for many references to its data in other well known and established websites, like Counterpunch, which credits WhatReallyHappened with good "detective work", because of the "11 published interviews" a detractor here tried to minimize, and because awards like "Site of the Day" is a criteria the Web uses to rate other sites. Would Wikipedia turn a "Site of the Day" award down? And why does Robert-Fisk.com bother with WhatReallyHappened, surely Robert Fisk is notable and reliable, risking his life in Iraq and Lebanon? Why did Wikipedia fail to delete WhatReallyHappened the last nomination, if it wasn't notable in the earlier determination? I don't see how, if the matter was a split decision, this split decision is anything but a failure to prove WhatReallyHappened isn't notable, it clearly was a failure to prove that, and there's no new information to say that WhatReallyHappened isn't notable. There is, however, new information that WhatReallyHappened is notable, in addition to the earlier failure to delete it as non-notable, because another nomination for deletion has occurred within a month of the last effort to delete WhatReallyHappened from Wikipedia, when no new information has arisen in the meantime to cause this nomination for deletion. That is notable in relation to WhatReallyHappened, and it has happened because WhatReallyHappened is a notable website which draws such attention.

Roukan 04:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP–Useful news-source. Deleting references to it would show editorial bias64.193.3.46 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and ENSURE a neutral point of view

O.k., this is REALLY starting to get out of hand... Wikipedia should do everything that is humanly possible to make certain that no one-sided, or unprofessional views are permitted. Having said that, these constant nominations for deletion are nothing more than malicious attempts to supress valuable information.

Whether one agrees with Mr. Rivero, (and/or his website), is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this website. Wikipedia was designed to allow a wealth of information to be contributed from all kinds of people, from all walks of life, from all political or religious affiliations, and from every corner of the globe. Does whatreallyhappened.com present a professional NPOV? Of course not. :P But the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on it DOES, (or at least, should).

If we start deleting articles about websites, or cult movements simply because we don't agree with them; and/or because they might offend certain groups of people, where does that inevitably lead? Would we have to delete articles on rival political parties? Would we have to delete the article on "Red Magen David" because it offends Muslims?, the article on "Huckleberry Finn" because it offends Americans of African descent?, or perhaps the article on the "Spanish Inquisition" because a recent revelation that Tomas Torquemada was a converted Jew might offend people of that particular faith? Seriously, at what point do we draw the line?

The reality is that there IS a site called whatreallyhappened.com . The only adequate reason for deleting this article would be said website NEVER EXISTED, and is just somebody's idea of a joke.

As a fountain of information, Wikipedia should do everything possible to give all people the right to speak their minds, so long as they do so in a professional way, and expressing a neutral point of view, when writing a fair and balanced article. Pine 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: border added around entire comment to demarcate it. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMIE: Wikipedia is a place for knowledge , not editorial bias. Editors need to keep their politics to themselves.
Oh, yes, it's political, we're all screaming righties trying to get one barely notable site deleted. Weak keep for barely enough notability to make it, just like I voted last time. Despite the HWFO. Folks? Orwellian references are really counterproductive and just make you look silly, especially considering the nomination comes from a single editor, not Wikipedia itself. Tony Fox (speak) 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not again..please keep this entry. It is a good web site...just because it is not pro isreal does not make it antisemetic...honesty this is just very silly
Strong Delete as fails WP:WEB and the article doesn't establish notability for why the subject/website should be included in Wikipedia. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: A second time for deletion one month later? Get real. This is clearly politics and attempted censorship. Someone is trying to delete it because it's one of the top and most popular alternative news sites on the internet - that, by definition, makes it important and worthy of inclusion. It's also very controversial - that also makes it important and worthy of inclusion, and actually worthy of having an article with a neutral point of view. (Which so far the incorrect article has not been neutral being repeatedly reset to incorrect information.)

The real reason the site is being targeted is because it combines three dangerous things: controversial politics, disturbing truth (presented in the form of directly linked verifyable media reports, many of them mainstream, but under reported), and popularity. This is causing abusive interpretations of the rules hoping to cause it to go away by attacking those which link to it. Admittedly the opinions of the site owner border on abusive hate speech and anti semitism at times lashing out with cynicism and outrage, but it primarily serves as a link page to suppressed or nontrivial articles in mainstream or alternative media even for people who do not agree with the political feelings of the site owner.

I do not like or believe the opinions of the author, but I believe censoring the article about him would only prove his claims right all that much more. I read it to find under represented news. Both the WRH site itself and the article here on it could use some clean up, but they absolutely need to be in Wikipedia if you dont want to have a huge gaping hole which is painfully obvious because there is no article there. Deleting it would be dangerous and very counterproductive, showing Wikipedia to be a compromised and nontrustable reference source from now on.

My opinion of Wikipedia has dropped to about a quarter of what it was a month ago for even seeing this. The first call for deletion didnt really surprise me, actually falling for the second so soon again is approaching absurd. I've written articles for Wikipedia in the past, but I will not waste my time on it in the future if it is turned into yet another personal whipping boy due to threats forcing it into a political viewpoint. I will not waste my money on more donations either if it simply kowtows to a shortsighted minority trying to bully others into accepting their point of view.

Lets just be honest and say it all out in the open. Quit pretending that Wikipedia or certain people within Wikipedia are not being pressured in some abusive manner to try and quietly make the article and links go away. Stop the selectively overzealous interpretation of the rules on political grounds and let the truth stand for itself. Wikipedia's reputation has already been tarnished over this, I never even suspected rumors that other articles had been politically censored until WRH came up TWICE in this short of time. If the deletion goes through or ever comes up again it will just prove everyone right and other support may well flock away in droves after seeing the smoking gun of censorship.

To those saying the site is barely notable, how do you call 4-6 million page views per day of nothing other than hardcore news non notable? Considering the level of controversy and strength of opinions about it? 84.9.109.10 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: border added to demarcate entire comment. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The site is definitely notable. The rapid renomination provides evidence of this. Orwellian may be an axaggeration, but McCarthyism isn't. One must question whether the nominator has a political agenda.
Comment Can people adding comments please sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) and also please address the problems Isotope23 has highlighted that the article has (namely failing inclusion criteria per WP:WEB)? This AfD is related to the article in its present state. The site may be notable, however it fails to establish notablity (see: WP:VERIFY). Please also try to keep comments short, and avoid breaking policies such as WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA. Thanks, TheJC (talk • contribs • count) 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and let me add that new contributors should read WP:AGF as well before spouting off completely unsubstantiated "suspicions" that this nomination was somehow politically motivated. There is no evidence that is the case and a quick scan of the nominator's edit history shows no reason to believe he/she has any political bias here.--Isotope23 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with THAT suggestion. First law of Wikipedia deletions: Any alleged "the truth the government doesn't want you to see" site + AFD = heaps of meatpuppets. Tony Fox (speak) 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site generates a lot of traffic and it has interesting information and a long history. (longer than Wikipedia, as it happens.) I suspect the call for deletion was motiviated by the caller's political point of view. WhatReallyHappened.com is one of the few websites which represents conservatives who don't neccesarily support the current US government. Keep. 202.89.180.58 07:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader[reply]
Keep SDC 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep Keep .... Haven't we done all this debate before? Bob Loblaw 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do we have to go through this rigmarole again? Wikipedia is getting ruined by biased deletion attempts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.100.130 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. What Really Happened is a very good known Independant Information Source. --Ko de Dok (User:83.162.17.74) 08:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Above comment by User:83.162.17.74, who changed sig to this non-existent user. [29] KWH 14:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING TOO, NOW OUR T.V MASTERS HAVE TO WORK IN THE [ONLINE PLAYING FIELD]. THERE ARE MORE DECENT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EVERYDAY BECAUSE OF THE NET, AND IT'S ALL FALLING APART FOR THE "T.V GENERATION", HOW SAD, DELETE IT AND WIKIPEDIA WILL BECOME IRELLIVANT, SORRY WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs)
Comment I keep reading here how Wikipedia is... a) conspiring against WRH b) doomed to be irrelevant if the WRH article is deleted c) a younger, less popular website than WRH etc. It seems like WP is really an inferior site. I'd think it'd be best for WRH fans to concur with deletion and be rid of this mar on their site. Since there's apparently nothing good about Wikipedia, I can't imagine why a group would fight so hard to be associated with it. GassyGuy 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really believe there are WRH "fans" as such I think that every "thinking" individual is a "fan" of independence and alternative sides of the story, because that's what thinking is all about isn't it, making your own decision. now when wikipedia or people inside wikipedia appear to be trying to stop such independent sites from propagating like say...... [putting it up for deletion a second time in less than a month] people get angry, understand? The point of the comment above is to address the fact that when a human is faced with a choice between a distortion or an obvious lie, and the alternative they will take the alternative, if wikipedia chooses to knowingly digress from alternatives to the "T.V generation" propaganda then it in it's self will doom it's self to second class cheapness, just through the simple principals of the market system and competition. this is a cold hard fact, there will be in the future and already is other online free encyclopedia's if they have more [of all] information and wikipedia keeps "towing the line" then wikipedia will be known as the [fox encyclopedia] of the net.

if you care about wikipedia GassyGuy don't let it happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.151.146 (talk • contribs)
Comment I suggest to delete Wikipedia. That'd do it.
Keep nothing changed in WRH since last time we discussed it, so a deletion would now harm wikipedia and promote WRH as a victim. --Boborosso 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep it. One of the few sources of reliable and unbiased news on the Internet.
All the verbiage is bogus. This is all about censorship plain and simple. There is an information war going on! The truth is rare and many want to squelch it. If anyone doubts Wikipedia's political agenda I refer you to the history of their AIPAC entry, which is now resolved (into a mere 75% lies).
Keep. WhatReallyHappened.com has kept me sane in trying to understand international affairs for the last eight years or so. More than any other website I value it's daily collection of news and commentary. Yes it posts links to articles that are critical of the US and Israeli Administrations. But when you consider the evidence from an intelligent non-imperialist perspective then the criticism is warranted. What really happened with 911? Does anyone still believe that airliners and jet fuel brought down and pulverised three massively sturdy WTC buildings on 911? Burning kerosene cannot melt steel!! Does this tragedy justify invading two sovereign countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians? More recently, who really believes that the IDF's shoot and burn policy in Gaza is a reasonable response to one captured POW soldier? The Israeli Administration just cannot accept that the Palestinian people would vote for a Hamas led democratic government.
If you follow WhatReallyHappened.com you see the reports day to day from world media that illuminate what is really going on. Unless Wikipedia editors want to distinguish themselves as guardians of Anglo-Zionist propaganda, there is no reason to delete WhatReallyHappened.com. It is a veteran giant among the alternative Internet media sources.
Before you decide the value of the website, try following the stories for a few weeks and look into the archives. You may find that you gradually come to understand a great deal more about how the world really works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.139.117 (talk • contribs)
Keep. It's the same as the drudge report, only with more commentary, and not as politically correct :-) . Was very instrumental in showing the scope of the anti-war movement that was suppressed by mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.111.68 (talk • contribs)
"KEEP IT" good stuff. mainstream media is industry driven,flitered garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Tried to format the AfD entry so it is marginally readable. –Dicty (T/C) 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WhatReallyHappened is one of the leading news and opinion aggregation web sites on the Internet. If you administrators who are, in effect, the policy makers at Wikipedia intend to provide yet another clear example of how Wikipedia is little more than a biased, agenda-driven web site disguised as a repository of knowledge, then go ahead and delete WhatReallyHappened. Then you can delete Rense and Raw Story Entry and who knows how many others... After you do that then you'll spend the indefinite future in what can only be a futile pursuit, trying to convince the world that deleting content aggregation web sites whose content you sometimes do not approve of is not censorship. Whatreallyhappened certainly qualifies ongrounds of notability. It has won these awards. GeneMosher 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty sure we decided this issue last month. Immediately re-nominating something for deletion is grounds for it to be an automatic keep I believe. I'm sure if the people interested in deleting this article keep nominating it, sooner or later they will succeed. However, there is no clear reason to delete this article, which is generally factual and a reference (I have no idea if the actual site is factual or not, I'm only speaking about the article on wikipedia). There is an article for homestar runner for christ's sake. Ltbarcly 12:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is a perfectly good reason to delete What Really Happened: it fails WP:WEB and nobobdy here has made any attempt to establish how this website meets accepted criteria from the guideline established for web-based content inclusion. Homestar Runner is a bad example Ltbarcly... it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I was unaware of this site until I read this AfD nomination, and I don't care about US and Israeli/Palestinian politics, so here's a few comments from a disinterested party. I don't see this nomination filled with rampant meatpuppetry, vandalism, and screams of bias going anywhere. This nomination is bound to end up again as a no-consensus. Suggestions for the article: edit out a lot of the unencyclopedic sections (eg. the sprawling list of "quirks"). Compare: Talking Points Memo, a site that surely beats WRH in terms of WP's notability criteria for web-sites, is both smaller and more concise than What Really Happened. –Dicty (T/C) 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Talking Point Memo doesn't seem to be any more or less significant than WRH.COM. 202.89.180.58 12:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reader[reply]
You missed my point. I said nothing about significance, which is impossible to determine, but about notability, for which we have criteria. –Dicty (T/C) 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the thoroughly malicious nature of the meatpuppetry and vandalism that has been going on, I have exhausted my store of good faith about the denizens of WRH. I have removed my keep vote. Others have made good points that this site does not meet WP:WEB. –Dicty (T/C) 15:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. . I don't know what more to say that hasn't already been said. Let me try and just reinforce what seems to be the common idea:
1. Grounds for non notability? Seems like alot of people are fighting for it...
2. This site and its listing here is VERY important if only as an example that there is truth out there and someone needs to show it in the light. For those of you who REFUSE to look at the deeper things, the VERY REAL things that make this world go round then I feel very sad for you and angry at the same time because you are part of the problem.
3. Yes nominating this listing to be deleted in such a short time very much sounds like a personal attack. It reminds me of a spoiled child demanding they get their way. Again...very sad. I can only begin to imagine what your political, personal and religious affiliations are.
4. Perhaps some of you think this is a conspiracy site. Let me say this. Even conspiracy theories and general stereotypes have roots in truth. Compare WRH to what can be said (no matter how very informative it is) to be a conspiracy site: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/wake_up_america.html
5. My personal opinion is that the world and particularly the United States is on fire and we are living in unprecedented times. Things have not been this bad, turbulent and corrupt since the collapse of the Roman empire. To add more to it by what really does look like censorship is a real shame. If you want to make a site molded in your opinion then why did you create an encyclopedia site?
  12:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) void
comment We will be standing with the people of wikipedia and aeon until their hopes for freedom and liberty are fulfilled.heil aeon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.117.111.61 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 08:17:16 (UTC)
Comment The comment from 83.117.111.61 aside Isotope made an interesting point. No one seems to have said why it shoulod be kept per WP:WEB Aeon 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is memory space so tight that these editorial decisions are necessary? If so, I note that wikipedia has an article on the Pennsic War -- which I attend regularly, but which I consider so far less "notable" than a massive, and heavily-trafficked, link to important news stories of the world, as to make it ludicrous to include the fantasy "war" in the face of "tight" memory allocation, instead of the news site. "Notable"? Good grief. Maybe your guidelines for inclusion do need reexamined. Exactly who or what is burdened by the presence of a whatreallyhappened article?--Mellyrn 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)mellyrn[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. Also, the fact that the site itself is campaigning for meatpuppets to comment in this discussion seems to impeach any serious claim of notability of the site. KWH 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I don't like many of the opinions expressed on that website, but it's still very notable because for many many people it's the best political news aggregator. I also don't like that controversial articles get bombed with deletion requests. The former request already had lots of contributors --Enric Naval 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Hey, shouldn't Fark be up for deletion on the same grounds? They are both just sites that have some kind of, uh, links or something on them. I say, if a page has this much controversy, then it must be notable!24.130.196.236 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no... Fark absolutely meets WP:WEB#1 on the grounds of multiple non-trivial published works. Wired, Toronto Star, et al have done full articles covering Fark explicitly. Can anyone provide evidence that the same non-trivial coverage has been given to What Really Happened?--Isotope23 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep It looks like the notability criteria needs an amendment that takes into account the volume and quality of comments made in defense of a site. I also think that the number of google hits should be considered as well (on my count 343,000 for "whatreallyhappened"). For the time being, and as regards theWP:WEB#1 criteria on multiple non-trivial published works, there were indeed two articles in the Toronto Star by Antonia Zerbisias in 2002 on Rivero's site. Considering that whatreallyhappened.com focuses on highlighting news stories the mainstream media misses, it is surprising that it even achieved that distinction. If the article has flaws, it should be edited, not deleted. Tiamut 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Links to these two articles? I did a bit of searching on google but didn't find them or anything substantial. What I did find is this page[30] which has Michael Rivero stating:
Antonia Zerbisias wrote an article suggesting that people look deeper into 9-11. Her article mentioned several sites, of which mine was just one.
Note that WP:WEB#1 states that the web-site in question must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Without having the articles in question in front of me, I'm led to believe that WRH was not, in fact, the subject of Ms. Zerbisias' column, but rather linked from it as one of several possible resources. With regard to your lesser point about amending the policies to include the volume (and quality) of support, in this case the volume of support is a textbook case of meatpuppetry, and the quality has been atrocious: blanking comments, changing votes, setting up soapboxes, and god knows what else. If ever the quality of the support became a criterion, I would despair for the chances of this article. I have a hard time believing that the majority of WRH denizens whose sole contributions are to vote in this AfD have any interest in writing an encyclopedia. –Dicty (T/C) 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the reaction to that initial article which generates subsequent coverage of whatreallyhappened in the Star. Zerbisias in on record stating she received over 20,000 letters in response to the article, overwhelmingly thankful or appreciative. Bnai Brith Canada, however, wrote a press release on 18 November 2002, condemning Zerbisias for promoting "anti-semitic" sites and trying to get her article removed from the paper. (It's no wonder that it's hard to provide evidence for the notability criteria! Authors of controversial subject matter find it hard to get their articles to print - and increasingly, it seems to the Internet public.) She ended up clarifying her position in a subsequent article, ("Judge not fourth (or fifth estate" 19 November 2002)[31], where she zooms in on the debate over anti-semitism specifically in relation to Rivero's site, which is not a passing mention at all. Tiamut 00:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Really happened is one of the most important sites on the Web, bar none. It's no secret that people with an Agenda like AIPAC would like it to go away, and it's also no secret that the Wikipedia editors sympathize with this point of view. You either believe in free speech and independent media, or you don't. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.106.34 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:31:46 (UTC)

DELETE? THIS IS A QUESTION NOT EVEN TO BE UTTERED IN A FREE KNOWLEDGE FORUM Has Wikipedia forgot its roots? Has it gone the way of free-speech universities and tolerance? Do we really need another fascist summer followed by a dark winter? As I have mentioned in the past, numerous misdeeds (Abu Ghraib, Downing Street Memos, the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, etc.) by the American - and occasionally British - government were exposed months and sometimes YEARS before the "free & independent" mainstream media would touch it. The stench in here's getting pretty bad. I must depart to clearer skies.67.153.236.172 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!! If you care about the 'news behind the news' and the truth behind the lies, you should check out WRH daily!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.41.223.211 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:40:38 (UTC)

KEEP - it's scary that it's even a question.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colinhoho (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 14:43:26 (UTC)

Strong keep--The Brain 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been postponing my decision on this. During the previous AfD I was strongly opposed to deleting the article. At that point I had not read WP:WEB, like *very* many of the "meatpuppet" people here now obviously haven't either. And like them I was moved by a moral imperative that told me that this site is important and if it is deleted then something must be very wrong somewhere. I now have come to realize that the article doesn't conform to Wikipedia's quality standards which apply equally to all articles, and I particularly make a note of the fact that in the month that has passed since the previous nomination the issue that was raised then has not been addressed in earnest fashion. I also would like to comment that unsubstantiated accusations that "the Wikipedia editors" are out to get "What Really Happens" are immature generalizations. I for one believe that it is possible to find both that WRH is an interesting and important website and that this website unfortunately doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards without particularly suspecting that this is simplistically linked with the ubiquitous tentacles of the NWO machinating the Wikipedia voluntary organization. __meco 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bold textKeep, Bold textContinue, and Bold textStop Polarazing Discussion - Wikipedia is designed to be an online encyclopedia available to all for editing and reading. To choose to no longer list a page due to political slant is contrary to that motto. If an encyclopedia wishes to gain credence through a large source of truthful public information, that information needs to reflect the public. The fact that we are even having this polarazing discussion points to that wikipedia is loosing its focus on expanding the world knowledge encumbered by political manipulation.

Bottom Line: Facts are facts. WRH exists, it's a real website and voice of an important perspective. It should therefore be kept and continued in the worlds freest and largest encyclopedia. --12.161.155.144 15:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Private Citizen Z[reply]

Repaired a major blanking, and moved the above comment from the top of the discussion to the bottom. Where it's supposed to be, people. Thank you. Tony Fox (speak) 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- The site served its readers well in providing links to contextual background information on the "War on Terror" and the relentless PR campaign that led up to the Iraq invasion, something the mainstream media, for whatever reason, did not do. WRH has also linked to countless articles which purported to document anomalies in the events and official narrative of 9/11- another potentially fertile subject in which the mainstream media has shown no interest. WRH is a very notable alternative news site for those who wish to "question everything", and is a threat to those who are afraid of out-of-consensus viewpoints, even if, or perhaps especially if, those viewpoints are closer to the truth than the conventional wisdom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isayoldchap (talk • contribs)

Comment - If the sire were NOT relevant, there surely would NOT be this much ink (or electrons) flowing about it. Controversial it may be, but it is sometimes a little light in fairly thick fog !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.164.77 (talk • contribs)

KEEP WRH: ZIONIST CYBERHITMEN WHO ZERO IN ON EVERY ARTICLE OR WEBSITE THAT COMMENTS NEGATIVELY ON ISRAEL SHOULD NOT BE COUNTENANCED--THOMAS KEYES— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas keyes (talk • contribs)

Comment and now, just to make things more fun... we have anonymous IP User:137.244.215.19 tampering with the opinions here by removing deletions or changing them to keep: [32] & [33]. I will try to merge or contact the originators so they can add back their opinions.--Isotope23 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That particular user has already been blocked for vandalism. I have restored Tychocat's comment from ths history already. [34]. –Dicty (T/C) 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
there were a couple of others. I fixed Tom's because it was a simple replace and contacted the other person so they could add back if they so chose.--Isotope23 16:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Of course, I'd argue "keep," this entry. Right now, however, I'm not even sure it's worthwhile to debate this argument of whether "What Really Happened" should be kept on Wikipedia anymore. I suggest this because I believe that this problem truly originates in Wikipedia's flawed notability policy which needs objectivity, transparency, and oversight.

To me, notability is extremely tricky; for, it suggests that there are gatekeepers of culture who decide what is popular. Who are the people that determine what is "notable?" Is it the media, the intelligensia, those with power, or the masses? Is popularity determined by an individual, cultural, local, nation or international spheres? Is it indicated if it's pop culture or historical? Is it determined by one's known professional knowledge? Is it determined by one's individual taste or preference?

Although one may argue that the above classifications are valid ways to determine notability, I still believe that it is flawed because there is no objectivity. Almost anyone can nominate a site for deletion on Wikipedia, and therein lies the problem. What one person determines as "notable" may not be "notable" to another person, especially if an individual has not had contact, exposure to, or prior knowledge of the subject or article being nominated for deletion. For example, there are plenty authors, such as Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Gloria Naylor, or Ursula Hegi, that I am sure that quite a few people on this site have not read, are familiar with, or have heard about. Does this make these individuals non-notable because they are not known to an individual editor or Wikipedian member? They are not "notable" to these editors, but they may be known to a person who is familiar with world literature. What if a person doesn't know about a philosopher like Charles S. Peirce -- one of the founders of American pragmatism? If a person hasn't studied or isn't interested in philosophy, does this make Peirce non notable? I have had this experience myself, where articles I've written -- not so well known to some in American culture, have been nominated for deletion less than a minute after their initial creation -- without the Wikipedian editor taking the time to research, let alone taking the mere five seconds one would need to check Google's search engine to determine if a subject had prior media coverage or newsworthiness.

Another flaw in Wikipedia's notability policy is that there is little transparency. What if a person, organization, or institution has a dislike of a certain subject's inclusion in this "wiki" and wishes to have it removed from the public sphere to stiffle knowledge and to silence debate. One can easily cite Wikipedia's "notability" clause as a specious argument for an article's removal. I would argue that a similar phenomena is already exists and is rampant in corporate-controlled media where international and national news stories are shelved to prevent damage to their bottom-line.

My last argument is there is little oversight. I would have no problem if a page was deleted based on something quantifiable: Wikipedia has not instituted anything measurable in this regard. And, yes, there are ways to determine an entry's popularity - - statistics. Blog sites do this all the time. When I oversaw certain websites, I used free programs like | AXS Visitor Tracking that could do tracking. And even CPANEL has programs that can give individual statistics on which pages get the most traffic. Anyway, that's my two cents.

And lastly, I really object to Wikipedia's use of "meatpuppetry" and the like. It just sounds childish and meanspirited, in my opinion. All individuals have the right to their opinions and if they feel strongly about a subject, they have the right to express it, just as you do. And inspite of how we'd all like to believe we're "independent thinkers," we're all "meatpuppets" to some extent of our desires, cultures or society. American debate has sunk to the level of labelling or slandering groups of people, ideas, and/or subjects in order to "silence" the effectiveness of their opponents' argument. As a result topics, such as this one, that are in need of a serious debate are reduced to the mere superficial. Sarah smiling again 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, personally I don't see this as necessarily a question of vague "notability" of the site. We do have a quantifiable guideline with which to measure web content against: WP:WEB. Whether or not you agree with the the guidelines is a different matter all together, and is probably a more appropriate debate at the actual guidelines. In my opinion, What Really Happened does not meet said guideline (and I've enumerated why above). As for transparency, it's readily available on userpages (sometimes) and if not you can usually get a pretty good idea about a person from their edit history. I have no agenda other than strongly defending my point that we have guidelines for this type of entry, this particular entry does not meet said guidelines base on all evidence provided (and based on the fact that I mucked around on the internet for a while looking for anything that would meet WP:WEB, and nobody has advanced an argument explaining how it meets the guidelines. If Wikipedia has guidelines that are not met, what good are they?--Isotope23 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: added a border to demarcate the entire comment. –Dicty (T/C) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep An encyclopedia is not an item to be maintained by deletions. Obviously this site is inhabited by shills for the pro-war government. This was apparent in the Vietnam era but really unseen by the young in this decade. Think back to the War on Drugs - a propaganda war only, until the supply stopped - now NATO is the supplier/protector of over 90% of the world's opium. Wiki will sink into the same marshes of baloney after its successful hijacking occuring now. It was interesting for a while but it won't survive unopposed efforts at thought control. The internet was designed as a military system, and, as such, will interpret censorship as an outage and simply route around it. The designers knew that centralized control is a failed strategy (no not al gore). Ever think about a policy on NO DELETIONS ? Galileo and Copernicus would have loved that. After all, they were right in the beginning and won in the end, and its been the 'authorities' that first wanted G and C's work deleted, but today want their true role in thistory deleted. In the final analysis, where will wiki stand, and, by the way, what does the title 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' really mean ? The truth is never decided by votes. When my children were very young watching a football game with me, they wanted to know which team I was 'voting' for ......... of course I had to tell them that votes only mattered in an election.........silly me 24.73.33.65 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the website were not that notable, it would not be worth nominating for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.95.236.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 16:48:46 (UTC)

Interresting comment but faulty. This article is being nommed becasue it fails WP:WEB and is starting to head into the WP:NOT policy as well. Wikipedia is not a advertising service nor is it a place for POV and soapboxing. Aeon 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - this is one of the most useful, informative websites out there. It would merit inclusion simply on the basis of its huge traffic numbers, and the very fact that this discussion page is so lively shows that there is more interest and interaction around the topic than most Wikipedia entries will ever have

FlyingCoyote 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Isotope23. Personally I'm a little disturbed by the number of Anon contributions to this discussion. My understanding however, is that Anon comments are discounted. --Doc Tropics 17:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Not to memntion that one took a swing at my user page. Aeon 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per FlyingCoyote --Guinnog 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to delete a news/opinion site from being publicied. Nice one Wikipedia...Are you taking lesons from the Bush admin or being controlled by them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.38.250 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 17:10:42 (UTC)

strong keep - WRH.com has been a source of many worthwhile articles for me over the past few years, and it provides info that the MSM generally overlooks and/or is afraid to touch. It is truly useful. There need to be more sites out there which tell the truth about Israel, as too many of us Americans are petrified of being labeled "anti-Semites".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.63.75 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep. Those who do not agree can rebut but NO to censorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomfighter2 (talk • contribs)

Comment - are we able to tell when the last time the WP.WEB criteria was modified? 67.78.247.59 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being disturbed by the number of 'anonymous' contributions is an example of opinion that can be construed as 'editorial bias'. The source of commentary is not relevant, the content is. Now, Wikipedia is either an unbiased source of general information, or it's not. Please make up your minds, lest your credibility continue to suffer self-inflicted foot-wounds 67.78.247.59 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the risk of feeding the trolls I'd like to point out that the source of commentary is very relevant when it appears to be a massive assault by sockpuppets. Rather than waste further words on this page I'm asking an Admin to investigate these "contributions". --Doc Tropics 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! Is there anyway to protect this page so anons can't edit it for the time being, until the issue is settled? Aeon 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and block, for the length of this nomination, all IP addresses used to vandalize this discussion. I've been told my "vote" was deleted.) Non-notable interpretation web site. (The question of whether anyone else accepts the interpretation is irrelevant; it's just not notable.) Fails WP:WEB. This is not exactly a re-addition of my vote, because (1) I don't remember exactly what I said, and (2) I read the rest of the comments here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Obvious free speach issues aside, WHR is not a an anti-semetic site and if wikipedia is to be truely be the resource it wants to be then it can't delete articles simply becomes some people consider it offensive. -soulinite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulinite (talk • contribs) 2006-06-30 18:04:14 (UTCUTC)
Comment: This is a bad faith characterisation of this debate. The article was nominated for deletion because the site is not notable, not because someone considers the site to be anti-semetic or offensive. –Dicty (T/C) 18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be rhetorical... but is it too much to ask even the anon IP's to actually go back and read the reasonings being offered for deletion before spouting off nonsense?--Isotope23 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it's too much to ask. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - website is notable and popular in conspiracy theory fandom, said fandom being quite notable in the mainstream press (even if with scorn). Just because some people may disagree with the types of people the site is popular with does not mean it's "non-notable". - EmiOfBrie 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This might be a fools errand to point these out, but a few things that might need to be made clear:
- Wikipedia is not voting to delete this website. That's not within Wikipedia's power.
- The website will continue to exist and plenty of people will visit it, whether it is in Wikipedia or not. The website does not have an inalienable right to be included in Wikipedia for purposes of publicity or advertisement.
- Nobody advocates deleting this encyclopedia entry because of the content of the website or the news items and opinions there.
- This is not a question of whether you like the website, or how often you visit it. It is also not a question of whether there exist other articles in Wikipedia which do not meet notability criteria (if there are, they should be brought up for discussion as well, but that is not a reason to end this discussion.)
- This is a simple question of the pre-existing Wikipedia guidelines for whether a website should be the topic of an encyclopedic article, and whether this website meets them.
- The guidelines can be read by clicking on the link WP:WEB. If you think this article should be Kept, then make an argument as to how the website meets these criteria. A general discussion of notability and why Wikipedia has these guidelines can also be found at Wikipedia:Notability. KWH 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a bunch of new users have been encouraged to come "vote" to keep this article. It doesn't meet wp:web, so it should be deleted. More importantly, I'm the Mayor, and I say delete. Mayor Westfall 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria regarding multiple published works has been met. See my earlier entry above under Very Strong Keep. The policies also need to be changed. They are elitist, as is the tone of many of the posters here who made derogatory remarks about without Wikipedia user names who were posting here in support of the site. WRH is notable, even under the policies currently in place. People who want less censorship here need to get involved in drafting policy. Unfortunately, it is often those with a predeliction for power who get into that game, inscribing gobbledy gook with legalese loopholes that can be selectively invoked to discount entries on mere technicalities. I just want to remind Wiki members of one incredibly important existent guideline that mentions the importance of following the spirit and not the letter as regards the inclusion of a given page. Deletes are supposed to be a last resort. This site is clearly notable. The article can be developed, as has been since the last proposed delete. To delete now will be evidence of extreme bias and frankly counterproductive when so many new people have been exposed to Wikipedia and could form a completely wrong opinion about it based on the views of a hypervocal, rather disdainful minority. People, the policy needs to be improved! I urge those who care to join up, and get to it. Tiamut 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Care to provide a link to these 2 Toronto Star articles? Searching the Toronto Star archives for "Michael Rivero" or "What Really Happened" produces no articles pertaining to either Rivero [35] or the website [36].--Isotope23 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem a providing an exact date and headline even: 17 November 2002, "Pursue the Truth about Sept. 11" [37] and the next Sunday, after receiving 20,000 letters from readers, with only 2 expressing serious concerns about www.whatreallyhappened.com, she wrote about it again, devoting the entire article to Rivero's site (though I cannot find the headline for that article). Zerbisias also mentioned whatreallyhappened.com in another article on 29 April 2003 in "Star Scoop Exposes Both Sides of the Story. [38]. If you want more examples, I will try to track them down, but I think that three articles in the Toronto Star meets the multiple publishing requirement. Tiamut 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a passing grade on Notability to me... - EmiOfBrie 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to read any information about WRH from these links. Could you explain how you were able to do it? __meco 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the contents of both articles, having read them when they were initially published in 2002. In order to see the full text at the links provided (the original primary sources) you have to pay for the service. But if you do google searches on the titles of the articles or on zerbisias and rivero, you will see disucssions of the articles at many different blogs and perhaps even a reprint of one them. It should also be noted that whatreallyhappened.com is is linked by over 2253 sites according to its Alexa information [39], including World Net Daily [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22518] who quotes it as an important source in an article on the Oklahoma bombing, and Robert Fisk [40] who finds Rivero's views on the site to be notable enough to be included with the likes of Arundhati Roy, Ralph Nader, and the Dalai Lama. In summary once again, whatreallyhappened.com has been proven over the course of this discussion to have 1) been the subject of a 18 November press release by B'nai Brith Canada accusing it of anti-semitism, 2) the main subject of at least one and arugably three articles in the Toronto Star, 3) a primary source for World Net Daily story on the Oklahoma bombings, 4) an important source on 9/11 in the opinion of Robert Fisk, and 5) the recipient of the Democratic Media Award 2005. As such, it meets two, if not three of criteria listed in theWP:WEB policy. The resistance to recognize this despite hours of efforts from those who wish to see the page remain and documentation of the resources listed throughout this talk page is very disturbing and contrary to Wikipedia policies regarding deletion as a last resort only when efforts to improve articles have failed. Since the last nomination, improvements have been made to the article and research appearing on this talk page can be incorporated into the article to futher strengthen it. Tiamut 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - useful, long-established website, gives its sources, known to be a prime information provider in its field of specialization. Make sure the article is neutral just like any other and it's all good. Two deletion requests in as many months? No wonder the conspiracy nuts are coming here. We're practically baiting them. Inky 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.168.122.169 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC) WRH is a more informative source than all the network news combined. I found it without google or wikipedia so i say go ahead and delete it who cares. i never thought of Wikipedia worth a crap anyway so whos really the "not notable" here anyway, without WRH i wouldnt havent found this site to tell u where u can take this whole conversation.66.168.122.169 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The site gets a lot of trafic and is used by many people of different political stripes. The site is extremely useful as a repository of news stories that often don't get the attention they should. How popular does a site have to be before it's considered notable? Serpent-A 21:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To note that some Wiki 'editors' desire "to protect this page so anons can't edit it for the time being, until the issue is settled?" shows that these editors fear opinions they do not agree with. That is editorial bias, and it goes against everything the idea of the Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. Your contention that the site in question does not meet WP:WEB is an outright falsehood. You are either engaging in selective censorship, or you're being pressured to delete this reference by others who fear what the site stands for. How pitiful...64.193.3.46 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't fear your opinions, It was suggested to cut down on the meat/sock puppetry that is now effecting this AfD (Which is what it is, This article was nomed for AfD and the site in question posted a link to the AfD causing the readers of said site to come over and try to save it. that is 'Meatpuppetery in a nut shell, see WP:SOCK for the details and scroll down to the bottom under heading New users working together, Offical Policy against Meat/sock puppetry on AfD's and other articles). And it doesn't matter in anycase. Most of these IP comments will most likey be striked out anyways, only the ones with a NPOV feel to them and site reasons that the article should stay will most likey be counted and considered. Aeon 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB, despite lots of ghits. Also I see a lot of inline citations in the article, so was somewhat disappointing that they mostly point to links to the website itself and not to multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Comment - But it is nice to see all the new people and ips above contributing to wikipedia; hopefully some of them will stay and become wikipedians after starting here. :) Inner Earth 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Inner Earth, please see my entry above on the three separate articles in the Toronto Star on whatreallyhappened.com. At least two of the articles were non-trivial, the source is independent, and being more than one, I would argue that that qualifies as "multiple". Additionally, the site, meets other WP:WEB criteria as the recipient of of the Democratic Media Award [41] in 2005, a list whose 2006 winners include ABC News Off the Wire, Adbusters magazine, The Nation, and Mother Jones, among others. This is therefore a notable site under the WP:WEB which only requires the site to meet one of the three criteria listed. The evidence cited throughout this discussion indicates that two of the three criteria are met. Additionally, there is widespread agreement, even from those for deletion of the article, that the policy needs revision. "Wikipedia is not about censorship" nor is it about rule-setting and technical nitpicking. It is as plain as day that the site is notable. A deletion would be a violation of existing Wikipedia policy, both the WP:WEB and the broader policy per deletion in general. I would argue that it also defeats Wikipedia's purpose. The controversy surrounding Zerbisias' initial article on Rivero's site in the Toronto Star would make an excellent addition to the article and thoroughly justify its inclusion. I will try to make those changes myself, but if anyone else feels inspired, please go ahead.Tiamut 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Again, your contention that the site does not meet WP:WEB criteria is a blatant falsehood. As has been noted and cited in any number of ways in both discussions, it clearly does. And if "anonymous comments" will always be disregarded, then your "wiki" should cease allowing "anonymous comments" to be posted. Threatening to remove such comments from sources 'outside' your 'group' because they post comments you don't approve of (or agree with) shows you have a problem with adverse opinion on some level. And that problem can, should, and will be construed as "editorial bias" in many quarters. Thus, if your policy is to remain truly "neutral" as a good "reference" site, then you shouldn't even be having this discussion. If you want to remain credible, you need to take your personality out of the discussion.64.193.3.46 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to check whether it meets WP:WEB and I was unable to. Would you be so kind as to help me in this by pointing out which criteria are met and how? __meco 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 17 November 2002, the website was cited as an example of a 'carefully considered, well crafted and very compelling' website on 9/11 in an article in the Toronto Star[42]. 20,000 letters came in to Zerbisias supporting the article that was printed, many expressing support for Rivero's website. B'nai Brith accused Zerbisias of promoting anti-semitism in press release condemning the article which referred to some of the content of Rivero's site. [43] She refused to consider having the article removed and wrote another article on 19 November totally devoted to examining Rivero's site against the charge of anti-semitism [44]. These are examples of multiple non-trivial published works. You only have to meet one of three criteria to be considered "notable". This story should be included in the article which should obviously not be deleted. Tiamut 12:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WhatReallyHappened.com is a good source of NEWS and information not found very often on the web. Anyone whe reads the site regularly can see there is no anti-semetic agenda however it may appear at first glance.

steve

Delete. This site is a joke. Vitriol 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have voted KEEP, for the reason that any researcher, student of contemporary events would want to have this type of site easily findable, whether they agreed with any perspectives or opinions expressed on WRH. If you suppress this site by not allowing a Wikipedia reference to it, then you are guilty of attempting to hide and obscure this content which is an intellectual crime of the first order.24.1.11.49 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above IP already "voted" Keep once.[45] Also, since the above IP also doesn't understand why anonymous or "first edit" accounts are normally given less weight in a deletion discussion[46], see WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. Of course, I only bring this up because I am a representative of the International Zionist Conspiracy for Suppressing Truthful Articles From Wikipedia (Local 192). KWH 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This IP is a ZIONIST. We have nothing to fear from an open, fair discussion, therefore I do not over-react to WRH coverage which does not always show Israel in the most favorable light, a small part of my reason for voting to KEEP, even though I am only a lowly "one edit wonder". 24.1.11.49 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the hordes of anonymous minions showing up here at the frothing beck and call of the site in question, there's nothing really to distinguish this from thousands of other non-notable conspiracy theory sites. Hell, it just looks like a link aggregator. Big whoop. Cyde↔Weys 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, clearly you and others expressing this misconception are not familiar with the site, it has notable original summaries and exposition of topics. 24.1.11.49 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, the IZCSTAFW is quite familiar with the site, otherwise we would not have activated so many of our sleeper agents to make sure that it is expunged from Wikipedia. As everyone knows, if the website doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, then nobody will learn the truth about how we control the world. How's the weather outside Dallas? KWH 02:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is that sarcasm your best effort in support of deletion? I have mode no arguments or comments suggesting a Zionist conspiracy, I have said exactly the opposite. Glad to see you diagnostic utilites are working for you.24.1.11.49 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh, you're no fun. But let's talk about your comment, "If you suppress this site by not allowing a Wikipedia reference to it, then you are guilty of attempting to hide and obscure this content which is an intellectual crime of the first order." Would you say the same thing in a letter to Encyclopedia Brittanica, telling them why they should write an article about this website? Because you understand, this is an encyclopedia we're working on, and though we hope it will be bigger and better than Brittanica, it's got to have some standards.
How would the truth be suppressed if readers of an encyclopedia missed out on a gem like "The main page of WRH is the news blog, featuring links to news articles selected by Rivero with some commentary." or "To the left side of the main blog are links to articles written by Rivero or posted on pages belonging to WhatReallyHappened.com, advertisements, links to archives of items posted onto the blog in the past, a search bar and a link to the WRH store."

Or is that just a bunch of filler, because there's really nothing of encyclopedic interest to say about this website? KWH 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, it should not try to be the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It is however a reference point for people like myself who are researching information and opinion on current events. I don't agree with Grudge, but I would not want that site to be taken off the internet, and I would want Wikipedia to have an appropriate reference to it. You may not know this but students of contemporary events like myself, do want these type of sites to be well known and covered by other internet reference publications, even if we do not always agree with the content or perspectives of the authors we want to know what the POV is, and what views are being expressed. That is an important aspect of freedom of speech.
You haven't answered the question; what is the critical research material or coverage that a student/researcher would be missing out on? It sounds like you think that this site has a right to be in Wikipedia just to make sure it gets as much publicity as the Drudge Report - and that's NOT what Wikipedia is for! KWH 03:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have in fact answered the question. The criteria is not and should not be that Wikipedia will only cover a site if and only if it has some entirely unique critical research material, which is the standard you are attempting to forward at this point. You should know by now that a good number of people like myself rely on that site, among others for information about contemporary events. It is unique in its compilation and it is convenient in that sense for someone researching the information even if WRH is not the original source of all of the material being researched. Again, though WRH does have some original and interesting summaries and exposition. There is no valid rational for suppressing the article on this site. And again, repeating my first comment, given the ferocity of the pro-deletion opinions being expressed, apparently those commenters are attempting to suppress the Wikipedia article on WRH for political or ideological reasons. If the site was entirely trivial in that sense, would it raise so much commentary? Obviously it would not.24.1.11.49 03:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, when I said critical research material, etc., I was just picking a few words out of your original comment. But I think it ought to be obvious to you that Wikipedia does not have the power to delete this site from the internet, and obviously WRH got along fine before someone tried to create an encyclopedia article about it, and obviously will get along fine without it. And no, believe it or not, there is no cabal, this is not a conspiracy, Zionist or otherwise; I'm just talking, same as you. I also didn't pick up on anyone advocating deletion for political or ideological reasons. (although there are plenty of paranoid folks claiming so)
  - But let's try another tact on this - if tomorrow, Rivero suddenly starts posting links to hardcore pornography on WRH, or reviews of Harry Potter books written in Esperanto - that would be out of character, right? That's not what the site's about. It's the same way with Wikipedia. If it's not encyclopedic, that's not what the site's about. That's why we'll have an article about World War II, but not someone's grandfather who served in WWII, unless that grandfather did something notable (and verifiable from reliable sources). However, just about anything or anyone, regardless of their objective value, or whether they are good or evil, can have an article if it manages to clearly meet our standards of notability, and if the community consensus (this sort of discussion) is in favor of it. KWH 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT to finally answer the question.

Whatreallyhappened.Com IS VERY notable, since it was the first major website, (run by a steadfast Republican), that discussed the distinct possibility that the Bush Administration's plans to start foreign wars, were for no reasons apart from providing exhorbitant profits for Halliburton et al, and preserving America's Entente Cordiale with fair-weather allies: Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

When practically the entire "mainstream media" and virtually all of the (supposedly) opposition Democratic Party, were swooning over Mr. Bush, and giving a verbal rubber-stamp to his Woodrow Wilson-esque foreign odysseys; whatreallyhappened.com was the only conservative, pro-Republican, online community that presented an opportunity for peaceful dissent.

In essence, the website in question provided the ONLY "speaker's corner" to the millions of conservative, pro-Republican, Americans who otherwise would have had no outlet; by virtue of BOTH chastisement by other right-leaning media AND reluctance to stand with left-leaning, non-mainstream, media.

This article should not be deleted, any more than any article on pro-solidarity media in 1980s Poland, anti-apartheid media in 1990s South Africa, or the Voice of America, should be.

I apologize, Dicty, but I must respectfully disagree. The pro-deletion side IS largely, (though not entirely), driven by people who wish to censor opinions that they do not agree with. As one good-faith editor addressing another, I implore you to consider how history might one day look back on whatreallyhappened.com. That is, assuming history is ever given that chance. Pine 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMIE: (sorry did not mean to make it look like Pine posted this) Was the Article on WRH really burning up that many of Wiki's resources to necessitate deletion? I love both websites and it causes me a good deal of dissonance to have to take any kind of sides between the two.

207.224.92.111 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Keep.[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community and instruction creep should generally be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

I quote the above because whether the article does or does not obey the strict letter of wikipedia's policies should not be exclusive grounds for deletion. That Whatreallyhappened is such a notable if controversial site in the alternative media community is probably justification for having at least some type of article on it, even if only a stub or less than perfect article, to avoid accusations or proof of bias. That there is high risk, if not evidence, of a desire to censor the existance/links to Whatreallyhappened should be grounds for ruling in it's favor. Being marked twice in one month is suspicious. Consensus is fundamentally unobtainable when there is sock puppetry, therefore lack of consensus shouldn't be reason for a second or third attempt at deletion. Rather it should be evidence of McCarthyism.

Mark the article as needing cleanup, more references, more neutrality, and other points of view. It should remain unmerged because it has a separate existance from Michael Rivero himself, just like Microsoft is a separate article from Bill Gates. Indeed it is far more likely a searcher will be searching for Whatreallyhappened the site than Michael Rivero the person. There needs to be an article here, just not a poorly written one. Let people volunteer to fix it, then move on. Nobody will waste time rewriting it if they expect their hard work and research to be deleted in a third call for removal come the end of July. 207.224.92.111 07:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encapsulated the anon multi-line comment. Kevin_b_er 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was going to vote keep for the nice references collection, but they're all references to the site itself! There's a reference for "banlindex.com" but its hosted on the site in question as well, and http://www.bankindex.com/ is "No website configured at this address" No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. All of its claims of notablity are dubious. Kevin_b_er 07:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' I have already voted, but I would like to address the above comment. BankIndex.com has since went down but there are archives of the article http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARCHIVE/BankIndexPart2.htm. Dubious or not, they meet the "criteria", which itself seems dubious because it's common sense that a website like whatreallyhappened.com is notable. The notability article first states that it is a guidline, but then becomes a set of criteria. So are they rules of thumb or a gospel to be followed? As for people who don't like anonymous comments, I'd just like to point out that just because it's anonymous doesn't mean we don't have accounts on here. Perhaps we don't want to reveal our identity in a controversial topic? 202.89.180.58 07:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~This may need to be closed early per WP:SNOW, as this discussion is getting way out of hand.~~ Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that extends to these AFD debates. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we should delete it because the discussion is getting "way out of hand" or it has no chance of surviving anyway? Because other than the meatpuppets and the politically baised editors, that's where the real discussion is happening 202.89.180.58 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, never mind, as if it were closed now, there would be no consensus, and the debate would just be reopened anyway. I'm withdrawing my argument. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone request some arbitration? Vitriol 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This site fails WP:WEB no evidence has been established as to how it fulfills it Ydam 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence has been presented for fulfillment...see comments by Tiamut about a couple page scrolls back. - EmiOfBrie 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have seen these comments that you're refering to and I have been unable to read any information about WRH on the provided links. __meco 23:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even at http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html ? If the site won an award also awarded to mainstream media outlets, that really seems like a clear cut case of notability. - EmiOfBrie 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can find WRH there – as a two line generic recommendation, listed as one of 101 entries. __meco 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the reticence here at all, but am willing to provide more source material for the Toronto Star articles cited (remember, there are more examples here than just those. Please see my additional comment on today's Google News searches posted below). The evidence that at least two of the Toronto Star articles deal with WRH is in these articles can be found in this article, World Exclusive to GoOff.com with Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com[47], and at the blog the OmBudsGod! under an entry dated November 20, 2002[48] where the B'nai Brith press release on the Zerbisias' column and its reference to WRH is partially quoted. Shall I come up with more or can we concede that the criteria has been met? Tiamut 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the main article for links to the full text of two of the Toronto Star articles cited. I have added them along with a section describing the controversy that emerged from the first mention of WRH in Zerbisias' original article on 9/11.Tiamut 12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP' I read WRH regularly and find it an invaluable counterweight to the MSM. The arguments based on WP:WEB all hinge on the meaning of the term "non-trivial", which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The mere fact that the first AfD didn't take is testament to the non-triviality of the site; I very much doubt that my blog would score a similar victory. Nokilli 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Isotope23. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:WEB --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Also, a page the AFD of which attracts so many anonymous rantings cannot possibly be notable. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article does not fail WP:WEB. A number of references have been cited throughout that prove the website meets at least two of the three criteria listed. The refusal to accept this will only lend further credence to the views expressed in this article, Fake Encyclopedia Wikipedia Deletes Alt Media[49], which appears as one of three articles in today's Google News when conducting a "whatreallyhappened" search. Tiamut 09:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also worth noting that a search for "Michael Rivero" in Google News produces at least four articles at FreeMarket News.com, three of which feature content from WRH. These are: Camera Piracy Tech Developed [50], A Dime's Worth Between GOPs & Dems [51], and Vets Data Theft Looking Worse [52]. WRH is credited as the source that brought these issues to the attention of Free Market News. These are just three examples of multiple non-trivial published works on WRH by a third party that can be added to all the other examples listed above. Is more evidence required? Or can I get back to editing and building upon other worthy articles that require attention, rather than merely fending off attacks to delete and destroy what is a clearly relevant and notable inclusion to this online encyclopedia. Tiamut 10:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already 'voted' to keep but I wanted to cite the following excerpt from the top of WP:WEB: This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Notice that is says rough guidelines. WP:WEB was never intended to be some kind of absolute law, and in fact is a living document. Furthermore, I am sick and tired of ad hominem attacks by referring to posters as meatpuppets simply because they are anonymous, without presenting any evidence that they are in fact sockpuppets. Talk about a lack of references! Earpol 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Keep it, it passes.there is no world. 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has never made any edits outside this AfD. --Doc Tropics 14:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:WING. -- Avi 14:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this fails that. WRH got plenty of Google hits already without having to resort to Wiki to boost its Google numbers - EmiOfBrie 16:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jesus christ, what is this? This probably shoul be a hint that something is not as it should be! Ok, to my own arguements. I do agree with the above sentiment that WP:WEB needs to be worked at. i mean, we have a full article on Goatse.cx, but we are going to delete this? This site has a RESPECTABLE alexa rating of 10,711, compare to the #1 Shi'a site according to yaho: Al-Islam.org, it gets only 50,562. Rafed.net, THE biggest Shi'a site has 14000 I have heard about the site lots of times without have tried going to it, it is often refered to in the underground news media. It is linked to by 2,253 OTHER sites according to Alexa. Its just wrong to delete this, the numbers talk for themeselves. If having 130 reviews at Amazon.com does not pass notability, then what does?--Striver 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom gidonb 18:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE DELETE DELETE: Rivero is an anti-semite piece of trash and so is his website, it has no business being referenced on wikipedia!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.174.219.91 (talk • contribs) 14:49, July 2, 2006 (UTC)

Comment Following this train of to its logical conclusion leads us to delete Adolf Hitler and perhaps Osama bin Laden. What good would that do? Earpol 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is essentialy blog (and text of article describes it just as a personal blog!). Why don't we have articles about every somewhat notable blog? -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do we have any articles on Blogs at all? I can't understand how a Blog would ever be considered a proper subject for an encyclopedia. --Doc Tropics 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot understand this objection. Blogs are explicitly mentioned content covered by the WP:WEB policy and rightly so, since blogs are a huge and growing phenomenon. The rights and responsibilities of bloggers as journalists is a notion gaining legislative ground in many places around the world (including recently, California). The refusal of some parties to concede that the policy on notability under which this article was nomiated for deletion has been evidentially met over and over again is simply bizarre. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a stuffy hardcover encyclopedia. It's a revolutionary format on a revolutionary medium and its content should reflect important trends in the cyber-reality that makes it very existence possible. Wikipedia is in many ways a kind of collective blog, though taken to another level, where people can interact with one another as equals, exchange knowledge and build a peer-checked resource that can cover an unlimited amount of subject matter because it exists in cyberspace; and as such, it should resist aspiring to be a dusty encyclopedic volume on an office shelf that nobody ever bothers to pull down and look into since it is so out-of-date and so out-of-touch with present realities. No one is forcing anybody to love, feature or visit this page, except those working for its deletion. Let those interested in improving it work on doing so. Tiamut 21:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the points you've made, and I respect your position even though we differ. My comment above was just sounding off about my personal opinion; I didn't mean it to seem like a representation of, or commentary on, current policy. --Doc Tropics 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is sayin "what is wrong with a blog?" ppl, c'mon, we have goatse.cx, but not this? goatse its not even a blog, its a insult to the eyes. --Striver 21:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB. I've tried very hard to find something in WP:WEB to allow me to push for keep. I tried to view the Toronto Star article, but I'm unwilling to pay for it. I did read the followup, where the author retracts her listing. I view the original article and this retraction as failing WP:WEB since it appears it is Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, ... a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site. The B'nai Brith mention doesn't actually mention the site, other than indirectly. I really see no evidence of notability as Wikipedia uses it. As to the question of whether such criteria are useful for blogs, I agree that we need to look at this. There needs to be a clearer understanding of what blogs qualify for inclusion, and even what blogs, if any, can be referenced in main articles. Right now, it is a real mess. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, you did not address any of the points i raised in my keep vote, i woul appreciate if you did that. --Striver 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a headache before I got to your comments, and stopped reading carefully. Sorry. As I said, I tried hard to find some way within the framework for Wikipedia to argue for keeping it. It is simply not there. The number of reviews on Amazon is essentially useless (self-selection and subject to ballot-stuffing). Possibly Alexa ratings are useful, but they are not currently part of the criteria. Maybe that should be changed. As it stands now, it fails WP:WEB. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to article KwH, I accept that the use of "attacking" was possibly POV and the edit that you carried out, particularly the follow-up edit, likely helped to enrich the article. (N.B. I do find it strange that you would spend time editing an article you have voted to delete. Why bother if it is so non-notable?) In your edit summary, however, you accuse me of misquoting OmBudsGod.com, when in fact I do not quote them, but rather had provided a link to the blog since it holds a direct quote from Zerbisias in her initial response to the B'nai Brith press release, that I had quite briefly and accurately paraphrased in the original edit, I might add. Please do not make baseless accusations of "misquoting." While I make mistakes sometimes, I edit in good faith and to try faithfully represent the diverse sources I cite. Cheers! Tiamut 08:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon researching the claim, I found a link to Damien Penny's blog (which is mentioned by OmbudsGod). IIRC, the original text claimed that Zerbisias "stood by her reporting" at first, when the Penny blog revealed that phrase came from an open letter to WRH from Zerbisias which was sent after her second article criticizing the site. Zerbisias stated that she refused to retract the original story, but this was in the context of her responding to WRH readers who were furiously emailing her after the second story and alleging that she must have been pressured by The Star to repudiate WRH (which she denied being pressured). She stood by the thrust of her original story (that alternate causes of 9/11 should be investigated) but did not stand by WRH whatsoever other than as quoted ("the good parts are ruined by the hateful sections"). I'll give a copy of the link to Daimnation later if you like.

I apologize if you take it personally, but taken in toto the section seemed to be a misread or 'misquote' of the entire situation as I understood it from further research - I was referring to the content, not you personally. Also, bear in mind that OmbudsGod and Penny slightly misrepresent the situation themselves, since they accuse Zerbisias and the ombudsman of the paper of anti-semitism anyways, so the misquote is partially theirs.

And to the extent that I enriched an article which I favor deleting... the fact is that I researched the matter to understand why Zerbisias mentioned the site in two columns, and having done so, I have no reason to withhold that information from others. I still think that Zerbisias' mention is the very definition of 'trivial coverage'. KWH 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to review KwH, I had written that, "Ms. Zerbisias responded by standing by her reporting (See November 20, 2002 entry of the blog OmBudsGod! [53]). She did, however, retract her support for the WRH site in a subsequent article [ "Judge not the Fourth (or Fifth) Estate". The Toronto Star. November 19, 2002. ]." I do not see how this is a misquote or a misrepresentation of the link I provided, but would defintely appreciate having a look at the DamianPenny link you cited, or something even more authoritative. If Zerbisias' statement was a response to WRH readers, and not the B'nai Brith press release, it would be useful to the WRH article, definitely increasing the notability of the site. It would constitute evidence of WRH being an effective rallyer of 9/11 skeptics that can pressure the mainstream media to respond to the site and its readers concerns. Tiamut 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't say that you misquoted OmbudsGod, I said that it was a misread of the entire situation, capisce? here is the link where Damian Penny talks about the open letter, but I don't think it means what you wish it did. KWH 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jeez this page is long and the arguments are getting vitriolic. Delete because it fails WP:WEB and it has an Alexa ranking of about 11,000 (yes I know Alexa is not a guideline, but it helps to establish a feel for how popular a website is). Batmanand | Talk 13:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why is 11,000 not notable? I argue that 11,000 is plenty of notable for a non-maintream site, just compare it to the alexa rating of the Shi'a sites (Al-Islam.org has 50 000 and Rafed.net has 11000), or any other non-major religion or denomination. --Striver 18:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting nasty all right. I have said this page should be locked and not updated past closure. Now we'll see why. I would like to note that TedE, having today weighed in favor of deletion, gutted my article on The Intruder. Fancy that, of all the edits on Wikipedia, he comes after mine. Doesn't seem to be a film expert either, based on his edit history. My first basic article. And I've written the admin of WRH describing why his entries are self-defeating, able to be construed as racist, and that he's flat wrong on a number of things, particularly history. Further, I believe in making only one comment, not bandying things about, now TedE has me making two. I don't like that. Now look here, there's a lot not to like about WRH, but the evidence for deletion from Wikipedia ain't here. And I don't usually stick my nose in any business except democracy business, which is what we got going on here. Don't drag me in personally by stalking my edits, I'm the expert on them, not anybody else. Very unprofessional, TedE. Very. About worthy of a formal complaint, the proof for arbitrariness is in the nature of your edit. Want to go for it? I'm in the mood, now. Roukan 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Here is the link to get you started: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. What I did with The Intruder was to fix formating, add wikilinks, deleted your signature on the article, and took out what I considered to be original research. Wikipedia does not publish reviews, no matter how well written by an expert they are. While you are at it, you might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a blog. The rules are different. I have already written to you on your Talk page, which is a better forum. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If you have a problem with Ted Roukan, take it to request for arbitration or an admin. AfD for a completely separate article isn't the place to air you grievences.--Isotope23 20:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with Ted. Who's Ted? Any remark on this Afd after closure isn't right, and I think it was reasonable to say that Ted was cued to my article directly from here, so I responded here, because it is part of this story. If you had said nothing, Isotope, I would not write this, but when you say I have a problem with "Ted", it can sound like my problem with the edit is personal. Uh-uh. All stems from failure to lock. I have answered his answer on my talk page, taking a cue from him. I think the admin requirements he lists on his talk page are quite admirable, and after careful reading I am convinced he believes in them. This is a hot issue for some people, not much for me, frankly, as long as I get my one bit in, which is what it should have been left at, so momma don't care. Now take a cue from me, admins. Lock this page at the point when the decision was reached, so the record is not subsequently fouled by too much errata occurring outside the meaningful time frame. It starts to look like an effort to create a new paradigm, regardless what is actually happening. In this case reality doesn't matter, it's a matter of what it starts to look like. If you let it go on much more, and subsequently lock it at the earlier point like I suggest, why, anybody can say things like, hey, this isn't going our way, let's hide under Roukan's suggestion. You've got both sides to this discussion taking notice that this continues, too. Dicty and I were the first to flag it, the instant we discovered it was open. Like I said, reality of what is happening here shouldn't matter, because the decision is closed, but if you don't lock it, anything can happen, anything can be said about it, and I can see unintended damage accruing. If the discussion wasn't locked, Ted wouldn't have remarked here, he wouldn't have potentially had a commitment to a point of view in his mind doing edits a little while later, at least I'd have been convinced at that time that it didn't matter, and approached the edit with him, as we have now done. None of this would be possible if the thing was locked. And there's likely to be more damage, too. Heck all discussions should be locked once the decision is reached. It's obvious. It did take people a thousand years riding horses before somebody threw a saddle on one. Do we have to wait that long to adopt an obvious procedure? Roukan 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Roukan, it appears you think this decision is closed... which is erroneous. This Articles for deletion discussion is still active and ongoing. It was nominated June 29th and as the AfD process runs about 5 days. This will not be locked until an admin makes a decision based on the disussion here. Perhaps you are confusing this with the Previous AfD which closed on a no consensus May 28?--Isotope23 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not-this-again-Keep per my keep on last AfD. Despite the plethora of personal attacks on Wikipedia(ns) in these AfDs by members of the site, that doesn't change that the site seems notable.-Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable troll magnet/conspiracy theorist blog. At some point I tried to improve it but it's not worth it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Isotope23. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)d[reply]
strong keep: Quite notable. Ombudsman 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:WEB--MONGO 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't notable, should be moved to WP:BJAODN. There's a certain amount of vitriol going on. --Sunholm(talk) 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's also the best source for pro-Palestinian information ---don1one
Comment - still not notable, don1one. But I've copied it to your userspace for you at User:Don1one/What Really Happened for your personal use. --Sunholm(talk) 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think having it moved to teh userspace is a good idea. That way both sides kind of get what they want. The articl estill remains on Wikipedia but it is deleted form the Main Space. Aeon 00:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Isotope23. (And I'm not just saying that because all the puppets from that site are really annoying, although it could have been tempting. Thank God for WP:WEB) DejahThoris 06:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:WEB and per all the keep votes. — getcrunk what?! 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. In addition to the debate below, the article is very short, has little context and no references. It would have been a legitimate, if borderline, speedy deletion candidate, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late Panakkal Velayudhan

Delete. Non-notable/Unverifiable. No results on Google. utcursch | talk 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get several hits for "P K Velayudhan", who appears to be a notable person from Kerala, former Minister and KPCC General Secretary, who died at the age of 55 on May 25, 2003. What I cannot readily check is if this is the same person, but it seems at least possible. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. A link to this person was preemptively removed as "non-notable" from List of Ezhavas. May I suggest it is better to wait with such deletions until the conclusion of the AfD debate is clear? Such premature deletions of information make it harder to do research. --Lambiam ^Talk 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because the author provided no reason for notability and Google returns zero results. The author's last name is Panakkal, which probably means the person mentioned in the article is his relative (father, probably). I would have certainly not removed the link, had there been even one Google result or a reason for establishing the notability of the person. utcursch | talk 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bad article title, non-notable and seemingly unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Panakkal Velayudhan. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panakkal Velayudhan (late)

Delete. Non-notable/Unverifiable. No results on Google. utcursch | talk 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedy this if the other article is deleted. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is an article here, it does not pop up on my search..Stormbay 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Panakkal Velayudhan. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ganeshk (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voss-strasse

This nomination is nothing but a piece of haraßment directed at me as the author of the article. It should be discontinued and those responsible warned against such tactics. The things people do when they can't get their own way... Adam 16:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I find this claim bizarre; doubly so, since I have expressly agreed with Adam on the naming issue [54]. Septentrionalis 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable street. The Reich Chancellery is notable, this isn't. Significant sentiment to delete on its talk page

Delete as nom. Temporary Userification, to permit the article to be submitted to some more appropriate wiki, like Wikitravel, would be acceptable. Either would settle the metastasis of the "how to spell German" discussion now on the talk page. Septentrionalis 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no references or sources, and when the "unreferenced" template has been added to the page, an editor simply removes it and says that the street information is "common knowledge". However, the street is not notable, and doesn't even have its own page on the German Wikipedia. The information may be appropriate for Wikitravel, but not here. See: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Elonka 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although not terribly important, this is a nice little article. It has information that the Reich Chancellery article doesn't seem to have such as the prehistory of the street and the postwar history. Perhaps this information is not so specific to this street and an article on the area would be more appropriate which this one could be merged into but I certainly don't know enough about Berlin to make such a suggestion in any serious manner. The references seem to be adequate. Stefán Ingi 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not German Wikipedia has an article about the street or not should not be relevant, as far as I understand German WP has another policy regarding inclusionism, and all the street articles Adam has created are about streets that are key to German history. Blur4760
Keep... notable enough per Stefán Ingi and Blur4760 and because there's no good place to merge it to that makes sense in all cases. ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca 13:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Streets that are part of the topography of the former Nazi power centre are notable. See de:Topographie des Terrors about a very well known project in Berlin dealing with just these geographical roots. Merge into a larger article dealing with the whole area would be an option too, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Topography of Terror in English. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete; I think it wouldn't be out of place as a sub-paragraph of Kreuzberg or Berlin-Mitte, something in the gist of ...notable streets or something similar. Lectonar 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The street isn't itself notable (in contrast to, say, the Wilhelmstraße) and a mention of it in the article about the Reich Chancellery should suffice. The original research inherent in the non-German, non-English spelling of the title should be a matter of concern. Adam's statement in the nomination here is, sadly, typical of his attitude toward other contributors in the discussion. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just to you and two or three others. And what precisely have you "contributed" other than misguided pedantry and obstructionism? Adam 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The link in the nomination shows additional sentiment (four editors as I type) that this article should be deleted. Septentrionalis 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Delete Article fails WP:NOT Aeon 15:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Aeon1006, please provide detailed rationales in your deletion nominations. How does the article violate WP:NOT? Uncle G 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. The article is a mess, but the subject seems notable. 66,600 google hits, including articles about the group in Mother Jones, [55] and FoxNews.com [56]. --djrobgordon 17:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify per djrobgordon. --waffle iron ^talk 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yet another Wikipedia article used by a group's advocates to try to create the impression that it's notable -- it's not, so the article violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:OR, or for soapboxing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. The information contained in the article is not supported by reputable sources, and as such violates WP:RS and WP:V -- citing to blogs is not appropriate under Wikipedia policy. Morton Devonshire^Yo
Keep, looks notable to me. Last I checked, Fox News and the New York Times weren't blogs and they seem to think the group is worthy of a story. Recury 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify per djrobgordon. References to group in AP and NY Times support notability. Simon12 03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by consensus of Wikipedia’s Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy. Kimchi.sg 06:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EUNICE

Page is at best a dicdef, at worst nonsense. No encyclopaedic content WilyD 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO. Totally fails google search. Fan1967 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A1 (little or no context). Molerat 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A1, no context. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThugLine Records

Non-notable record company, Zero News Coverage, 500 google hits, all self promotion, fails WP:CORP WilyD 16:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a record label owned by some guys from Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. They are notable as fucc. Recury 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as labels created by major artists seem to be within WP standards. Either that or nominate Heiress Records next. GassyGuy 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, I'd have no problem with deleting a record company that hasn't released a single record, or at least merging it to Paris Hilton WilyD 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the case of Heiress I actually would support a merge, as it currently has one single to its credit + one forthcoming album, all by the same artist. ThugLine has a more substantial base, but I've actually weakened my keep as I can only find a small number of notable albums on the label. I don't think it merits deletion, but perhaps if an appropriate merge target can be found... GassyGuy 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it might be related to established artists, until they've got more than one release (uh, and even the one there hasn't dropped yet, right?) then it's not notable. Onwership by notability doesn't cause notability: I'm sure the guys from BOne Thugs own homes, too, but that doesn't make those homes notable enough for their own articles. -- Mikeblas 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but WP:MUSIC says that their side projects are. It's referring to other bands they are in, but I don't see why other labels that they own shouldn't count too. Recury 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They actually already have a few releases... Thug on Da Line, Gemini: Good Vs. Evil, It's Not a Game ... maybe more. Like I said before, it's not a lot, but it seems enough to stay. I would still support a merge if an appropriate target can be found, but, barring that... GassyGuy 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenhat

This article is for a webcomic that began and ended in 2004 with just 13 strips produced. It doesn't appear to meet any of the provisions outlined in WP:WEB and its site is unranked according to Alexa. I have copied the contents of the article over to Comixpedia: Eigenhat. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, no claim of any sort of importance, has not achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. Is this type of webomic article (no claim of importance, no sources, just character and plot summary) speediable? If not, it ought to be. -- Dragonfiend 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable webcomic, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. I strongly suggest that the webcomic author and "musician" Craig Hardgrove (Tycho) is nominated sooner or later too. - Hahnch e n 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: extensive work has been done to this article since the nomination and support for deletion which has not been addressed. No result, article kept by default. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Source

advertisement, no evidence of notability Dweller 16:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Petros471 16:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first page and I would appreciate any help developing an article about this company before deletion. I originally found the link to Techno Source under TV game with no article attached to it. I looked at some of their competitors in the business, such as Jakks Pacific and Radica, so I believe that a page for Techno Source would make the toy pages as a whole more comprehensive. Jay w

Happy to discuss at the article's talk page. --Dweller 16:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jay w. In order for it to be acceptable for Wikipedia, you'll need to provide (within the article) evidence that the company meets the standards of notability in WP:CORP. If you do, the article can stay. Tevildo 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more detailed advice posted at the article talk page. --Dweller 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Dweller. Thanks for the advice! I read over those articles and I think I have a better idea of what you mean. Also, I plan to add a a lot more to this article, but since the formatting takes so long (at least for a novice), I've been putting it up in pieces. Jay w

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand bunag

Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted guidelines:

WP:MUSIC (for bands)
WP:BIO (for biographies)
WP:FICT (for fictional characters)

Sopranosmob781 16:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Bioregionalism. As David says, the trick in merging useful information is finding it, and as no-one's pointed any out specifically I'm not willing to just let this hang around with a merge tag forever (the last paragraph may indeed have external links, but the connection with bioregional democracy rather than bioregionalism in general seems tenuous at best). If anyone actually wants to do the merge, follow the redirect back and click 'history'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregional democracy

Normally I might try rewriting or stubbing an article like this, instead of coming to AfD. However, whenever I try, I can't find anything to save. I have some older detailed notes on the Talk page, but here is a summary.

First, I'm having a hard time finding widespread usage of the phrase "bioregional democracy" to base an article on (see this Google search)
The article intro claims the term describes "a set of electoral reforms, but gives no specifics of any actual or proposed package of electoral reforms". It then goes on to describe what appears to be a confused and incorrect reading of the Great Lakes Commission.
The sections which follow seem to be a bit of a hodge-podge of wrapping the term "bioregional democracy" around bits and pieces of hopeful ideas.

I'm sure there are political discussions around the concepts of bioregions and bioregionalism, and perhaps the phrase "bioregional democracy" is used at times, but this article seems to be a poorly written opinion essay, with no citations of sources or uses. . David Oberst 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - David Oberst 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Bioregionalism - the concept is used in academic discussions about green politics (see f.i. Andrew Dobson Green Political Thought p.99-104), but this article is a mess I would advise to merge the useful information on the page with Bioregionalism. and change this into a redirect. --C mon 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trick would be identifying the "useful information". I suspect that anyone qualified to actually write some sort of "bioregionalism and politics" section wouldn't need this article as a pointer, and I'd hate to see large chunks of the current text just moved over to bioregionalism. - David Oberst 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per C mon +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 09:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per C mon Penelope D 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect At least the last section on the page is referenced, even if in an unusual way. Ansell 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That section quotes a pair of linguists, and the referenced text in neither case contains the words "democracy" or "bioregion". I'd also note that some of the Fettes stuff links to his definition "Linguistic ecology may be briefly defined...as an approach to thinking about language which attempts to see it 'steadily and whole'. I thus suspect that the use of "ecology" in this context may not even necessarily be the normal "environmental" version. Presumably some of these interests in small communities and languages may overlap with small-scale or "bioregion" politics or advocacy, but this section is hardly an example or citation for the term "bioregional democracy", whatever that may be. - David Oberst 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article exists in four languages. Who could possibly assert that there is not enough interest in it? If it's poorly written, rewrite it. But don't delete it. Greyscale 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles appear to be translations of the English one, so if it is out to lunch, the existence of translated versions don't provide any separate credibility. It isn't just a matter of bad writing in the article - so far no-one has actually come along and pointed out any good reference on which to base an article starting "Bioregional democracy is...". David Oberst 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, and the Wikimedia article merged into the Wikipedia one, as all the references are to Wikipedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in pop culture and Wikimedia in popular culture

This is all a rather gratuitous ~~self-reference~~ self-promotion. How many other "websites in popular culture" articles do we have? We don't even have Google in popular culture. I'm not saying this should be purged entirely, though: just migrated to the project space. Pharos 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references carefully. That an article is about Wikipedia does not automatically make it a self-referential article. A self-referential article is, in essence, an article that mentions itself or that makes no sense elsewhere than in Wikipedia itself. These articles are, in contrast, simply articles about Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia. They are breakout articles, broken out from a section in Wikipedia. The concerns with such articles that apply at AFD are whether they constitute original research and are verifiable. The existence of similar breakout articles for other topics is a function of how much secondary source material there is on those subjects to work from, and thus whether breakout articles are required, and has no real bearing upon whether these articles should exist. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Uncle G 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that this article "makes no sense elsewhere than in Wikipedia itself". This is non-notable Wikipedia cruft– how can we complain about garage bands if we let this stuff in? You can call it a "breakout article", but it is clear that such a topic is just unworthy of iinclusion in any encyclopedia. Perhaps a line or two could be merged back to the Wikipedia article, but that's about it.--Pharos 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Again, I ask you to please read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references carefully. You are not doing so. This article makes sense elsewhere that in Wikipedia itself. One can demonstrate this quite easily by reading it here and seeing that it still makes sense. The article is not self-referential. You do not understand what a self-reference actually is. Please read the explanation of what self-references are carefully. Uncle G 11:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I certainly do understand what self-referentiality is. I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner ("this Wikipedia article" etc.); that would be something that could easily be repaired, and would not warrant an AfD. The problem is that the whole topic is Wikipedian vanity of the highest order, a caricature of what is commonly called "self reference" here, something there has been a longstanding policy against (though, true, it is not detailed at WP:ASR): the gratuitous mention of everyone's favorite internet encyclopedia.--Pharos 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never argued that the article is written in a linguistically self-refential manner — You have argued exactly that. From the top of this very discussion: "This is all a rather gratuitous self-reference.". Uncle G 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Geez, please give me a break for linking to the wrong policy page, though I explained exactly what I meant several posts ago. WP:VANITY.--Pharos 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VANITY. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikimedia in popular culture since it is about Wikipedia in pop culture, not Wikimedia, and the difference between pop culture and popular culture is too narrow to be comprehensible from the article titles. Then move Wikipedia in pop culture into the Wikipedia: namespace at somewhere like Wikipedia:Wikipedia in pop culture. I can understand wanting to keep track of that sort of thing but not in the main encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 07:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not sufficiently noteworthy or expansive subject matter. Yahoo! is a much more noteworthy website than Wikipedia (Alex rank #1), and much more ingrained in popular culture, yet we have 10 times as many Wikimedia-related articles as Yahoo!-related ones. The problem here is not self-referentiality so much as it is systemic bias in coverage, which we should combat, not encourage. If users want to maintain a list of references to Wikipedia in popular culture, they should do so in the Wikipedia: namespace, not the article namespace. -Silence 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge into one. Wikipedia is a gigantic site. It's one of the largest in the world. It's also unique in the way it works. Thus, it is sometimes seen in the news, which is rare for any website, and actually parodized on many occasions. This is a fact. There is more than enough information to make an article about this, and there is absolutely no question about the notability of the phenomenon. I feel that saying delete in this case is based on the assumption that one needs to not prioritize Wikipedia itself in the making of articles; don't forget about the fact that Wikipedia is an extremely important website, in daily reach and traffic as well, and that it's noteworthy enough to write about! Same goes for the jokes and parodies that have been made about it; the fact that they have means that there is a reason to document it. Please don't delete this. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge. Sarge Baldy 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no WP:ASR problem here. Obviously, the articles need merging, but I'm not endorsing a merge outcome because I don't like forcing merges through AfD. Mango juice^talk 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the juice of Mango. This is properly cited and it really is avoiding self reference. The real issue with WP:ASR would be a crossname space direction. Yank sox 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Penelope D 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge and if something wrong happens, then separate it if it must be done. 24.188.203.181 03:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia in pop culture, although it would help to organize it a bit. Then there's the possibility of merging it into Wikipedia#Wikipedia in pop culture, which already exists, mind you. Extravagance 19:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge, per above. - CNichols 01:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into one or the other Jam01 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge. Although this discussion is in severe danger of disappearing up its own fundament. David | Talk 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge, per above -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is part of popular culture now. :P--Kross ^Talk 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (fails WP:WEB). Ian¹³ /t 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Order: Online Gameing Clan

Non-notable clan, claims ownership of page to be used as a hosting service, blanked comments and speedy delete when added to page so I gotta take it here. Also continually blanking AFD notice. Crossmr 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Order which is content about the same clan. --Pak21 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good is there an easy way to do that? --Crossmr 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to merge into an existing AfD when this one stands to be deleted on its own (non-notable organization). EVula 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Non-notable gaming clan" is generally redundant, and this one is no exception. Fan1967 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse games

Contested prod. Pure spam article. Googling for "Apocalypse games" +"reign of blood" -wikipedia gives 1 hit. There are lots more for just "apocalypse games" but they don't refer to this. Mango juice^talk 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn company, advert. To expand MJ's research, Gsearch for "Apocalypse games" +"Annihilation" also yields the same only hit: the company's blog. It must be noted that the logo uploaded by the article's author appears to be self-made - hardly a suggestion of the company's importance. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fan co-op. --djrobgordon 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn spam — getcrunk what?! 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable spamvertisement. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HKU IE

This page is full of self-promotional materials in badly written English Moomin317 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. --djrobgordon 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an incomplete catalog page. Worthy of maybe one line in main Hong Kong University article. NawlinWiki 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it's a section in HKU and should just be mentioned in the HKU article instead. --ColourBurst 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. No prejudice against a renomination of this article if the concerns of this AfD aren't met in the near future. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James N. Gardner

Non-notable author of the AfDed biocosm idea. Delete per AfD for biocosm. --ScienceApologist 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete. If Biocosm goes completely, this article should go too. However, if it's retained in any form, this article should stay. Tevildo 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Biocosm was closed as "don't delete" (either reduce to a stub or merge with Anthropic principle), so I'll need more consensus before deciding what to do with this article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my earlier comment. If Biocosm is notable in some form, then its originator probably is. Tevildo 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ranks like 342,000th on Amazon as far as his book goes. Tychocat 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Exapand or Delete if there is no more information to put in the article. Its a sub-stub as it stands right now. --Pboyd04 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnine

Non notable band: first album yet to be released: continuationof other NN band Fram 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is another, more notable indie rock band also called Saturnine (see their allmusic.com entry). This article is about a different, newly formed band that has yet to release an album. Amazinglarry 20:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability, or rewrite the article to be about the more notable Saturnine. --Coredesat 23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete red link farm. --djrobgordon 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn yet. NawlinWiki 20:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, crystal-ballism with the unreleased album. Tychocat 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost speedy. —EdGl 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unvandalised back to a redirect. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 11

utter waffle David Humphreys 17:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nonsense. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete bollocks. --djrobgordon 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced unverifiable rubbish. But deletion is not the solution, and there was no reason to get AFD involved. Just revert to the original redirect to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where Rule 11, and its role in the debate over tort reform is discussed. Uncle G 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Although the article is no longer a copyright violation, there is still a consensus to delete on the basis of notability. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stein

The page should be deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.amysteinphoto.com/biography.html. SteveHopson 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio, vanity (?), self(?)-promo David Humphreys 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as nn bio. No notability demonstrated. Websites reference subject's own website and subject's own student work.
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am poster, not affiliated with artist and new to Wiki. Rising star in NY photography world. Big fan and patron. Help. How do you clear the notability bar? (by User:64.131.201.187)

Publications; books; critical reviews; shows; stuff like that (and welcome). Rklawton 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy if deleted. Current contributor (from the edit history, it appears to be User:65.200.177.10 although it may be a dynamic IP in which case I'd recommend the user getting a Wikipedia account) appears to have addressed the Copyvio issues in the recent edits since this article was nominated. Therefore I've commented keep in this discussion, as the article appears to be undergoing changes and User:64.131.201.187 has stated (s)he's new to wikipedia and going to be working on the article. If consensus is delete though, I recommend moving the article to user space (and delete the cross-namespace redirect) so that the editor(s) are able to bring the article up to inclusion requirements - and further their understanding of the policies/guidelines we have on Wikipedia (either through use of the {{helpme}} template, the Village Pump, or from experience and input from others). TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it effectively asserts notability (to my personal standards). -- Kjkolb 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poster, again. Artist has been awarded PDN's Photo Annual award three times. She has been published in countless publications including the Washington Post, Vanity Fair Italia, Smithsonian Magazine, and Art News. She has had shows in London, Seattle and New York. She was selected for the Northwest Annual in 2004, the very prestigous Review Santa Fe in 2006, the 2006 Photographic Center NW Annual (if you are in Seattle, check it out next week), she just won the ASMPNY Image '06 award, and her work will be the subject of a feature in the August issue of Popular Photography. Would all of this information allow her past the Wiki velvet rope?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Croix (store)

Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Even here in the UK where we do things on a much smaller scale, a group of 12 shops is not notable! - Delete.BlueValour 17:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creator - Like most luxury stores, St. Croix is no exception. Why do we have a page on Jimmy Choo? They have 8 stores in the US. Why do we have a Bulgari page? Why a Salvatore Ferragamo page? Both companies have less than 10 boutiques nationwide. Oscar de la Renta and Carolina Herrera both have 3 stores in the US. Henri Bendel has 2 stores in the US. Like all luxury fashion corporations, most of them have very few stores. It meets this criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The corporation is often discussed in Esquire, GQ, WWD, Fashion Week Daily and Lucky (magazine) --Shrek05 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the comparisons are not valid; Jimmy Choo is a designer while Bulgari have a worldwide reach of 150 stores. The media references need to be sourced with specific articles which they are not. In any event, a large part of the article will need to be deleted as POV or advertising. BlueValour 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the article, it appears as though these stores are spread out across the USA, which usually is a trait of a luxury store. Although I've personally never heard of it, I don't suppose that makes it reasonable to vote against it. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. advertisement. Fails WP:CORP, in particular not having multiple non-trivial articles. I find catalog listings, product listing, and occasional product mentions (press releases). Can't find the articles mentioned by Shrek05. Tychocat 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The creator used poor examples. This brand is more like kate spade and Dooney and Bourke, both midscale luxury brands that have a decent name in the US but arent as popular worldwide. When the kate spade article started it had less than 6 stores in the US but had over 150 mill in revenue. This is exactly the same as St. Croix, which is featured in many of those articles, the reason you probably can't find them is becuase you dont have subscriptions to the magazines that the creator mentioned. I would say it isnt in Lucky as much though, most commonly talked about in GQ. But like most luxury stores, this is no exception, unless you want to go through all of wikipedia deleting lotsa articles on luxury stores (the two Ive already mentioned would fall under this category). Similarly, the only thing i see that is POV is about the clientele, everything else seems neutral--Sarasote 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POV include 'leading name', 'noted for their high quality of wool' (noted by whom?), the comparative pricing etc. All may be true but need sourcing to remain. BlueValour 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The fact that the article is poorly written and reads like an advert is not a reason to delete. Even one location was not listed correctly which leads me to believe that is from some company produced material. The fact that so many of the malls they are located in have articles is a plus. Probably needs a good cleanup to not read like an advert. Vegaswikian 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed a bit, its not from a company material, only thing is what materials they used because i cant find an article the exactly says the materials and since i cant just say "if you go to the store you will see the tags" so thats the only place to source it. but the Desert Passage is inside the Aladdin Hotel, it wasnt wrong, just yours is more specified. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the article, let me know. --Shrek05 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete anyways. TheProject 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff (Cars)

More utter waffle David Humphreys 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nonsense. --djrobgordon 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The criterion for speedy deletion is patent nonsense, which this article is not. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G1 BJK 17:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not patent nonsense. Speedy deletion under that criterion does not apply.
The author of this article has failed to heed to good advice of writing from the perspective of this universe, but has instead written from an in-universe perspective, with all of the consequent problems that that entails. The subject of the article is a character in the movie Cars. The same author has given us Sarge (Cars) and Mack (Cars), note. The advice in WP:FICT is, of course, to deal with these situations with articles such as List of minor characters in Cars, rather than giving each minor character a one-sentence perpetual stub article of xyr own. Uncle G 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no speedy criterion applies. Powers 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Theatre

Self promoting vanity advertisment David Humphreys 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable ad. Powers 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. no notability stated or implied. Tychocat 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars transformers

Blatent Ad WilyD 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Free advertising for eBay and Star Wars David Humphreys 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I was all ready to call WP:BALLS on this but it is in fact a real toy: [57] though not listed [58] which means it is probably out of print. This may explain why someone seems to be advertising their ebay auction of it here. if this was completely rewritten into an encyclopedia article concerning the line of toys, Iit might warrent inclusion... and this is coming from someone who grew up with Transformers and Star Wars toys galore. If anyone wants to rewrite this as an actual article about the Hasbro Star Wars Transformer toy line, I will strike my vote and reconsider based on the new article.--Isotope23 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and in case anyone cares...[59] compare the seller's name to the originator of the article. He doesn't even have the item he's auctioning yet...--Isotope23 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement, whether or not toy, author, or I exist. Tychocat 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Pboyd04 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're quite real, but this article doesn't have any valid content. -LtNOWIS 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India-rising

Recreated after being prodded, so counts as contested prod. Still a NN website that fails WP:WEB Eluchil404 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wouldn't that count as an G4? Since they reposted a deleted page? BJK 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No according to Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion#Conflicts recreation of a prodded article should be treated as a contested prod and sent to AfD. Eluchil404 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Powers 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body identity

Vague, unsourced, possibly original research. Linked by only two articles. - Sikon 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be New-age neologism psychocruft. Artw 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very POV as it stands, as well. Tevildo 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac lockett

Self promoting vanity NN Musician only 1 Ghit to own website David Humphreys 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no claim to notability. Recury 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Recury. Powers 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7 - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Moulter

Not notable. Speedy delete tag removed twice by author, so placed in AfD. --DarkAudit 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom. author removed tag again ... I rv'd it David Humphreys 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. Author continues to remove tag. I rv'd it again. Powers 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Author continues to remove tag. I rv'd it again, again. David Humphreys 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Tag removal now coming from an NIH address known to be used by vandals. Rv'd again again again. --DarkAudit 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author keeps removing the tag, get rid of it now to save him the trouble. BoojiBoy 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Comment Just rv'd it again, again, again David Humphreys 18:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebilliondollarbet.com

Advertising promo vanity David Humphreys 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly; Delete. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or maybe speedy. Can we speedy this one? Fails WP:WEB and a few others, too. Rklawton 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No speedy deletion criterion applies. WP:WEB is not a CSD. Powers 17:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we create one? Rklawton 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another ripoff of the Million Dollar Homepage. "[T]he website is said to be poised to generate a lot of traffic" -- yes, and I'm said to be poised to win the lottery. NawlinWiki 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Early close because the contents is all new. Chinky is kept as is. I will prod Chink separately. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinky and Chink

Delete Chinky is neologism, unencyclopic article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Chink to the nom, it is a disambig between two redlinks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chink. Powers 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing there! It's a disambig between two redlinks, gonna add it to the nom now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catamorphism 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Going back in the article's history one discovers that this is an article about a genre of takeaway restaurant found in the United Kingdom. The name is unfortunate, but that appears to be at least a common name for this genre of restaurant. And Chinese restaurant is already taken, in any case. ☺ The content at the time of nomination was unsourced original research, largely rubbish, that grew from poor beginnings. (A modicum of research reveals that the appellation "Chinky" certainly existed prior to the 1990s, for example.) Deletion is not the answer, however. Writing a verifiable article that cites sources is. I've erased the rubbish and started you off with a stub on the topic that cites sources. Keep. Uncle G 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're unbelievable! You have completely gutted the orginal article, in essense deleting yesterday's content out of process, and depriving us of the opportunity to conduct this AfD in the regular manner! I have no intention to starting an edit war with you - but I cannot leave it as is. Here's what we're going to do: I will revert your additions, and should the outcome of this AfD be "delete", I will restore your restaurant revisions and we'll proceed from there then. If you stubbornly revert my changes, I will take it to WP:AN and another sysop will have to intervene. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again, I refer you to both Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion and the article's history. Please actually look at the article's history, especially the real original version of the article (as opposed to the version at nomination, which you are erroneously calling the "original article" for some unknown reason).
    I find it somewhat strange that you are reverting to unsourced content that you yourself nominated for deletion in the first place, incidentally. Uncle G 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in Uncle Gs form, ie in reference to British slang for Chinese reference and not some vandalised gibberish. Artw 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, nobody's challenging UG's form - for now. It will be kept at the end of this AfD regardless of the outcome. The question before us is whether we should keep the pre-UncleG form! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case Strong Delete. Artw 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that it's the same subject. The rewritten version is simply verifiable and lacking the extraneous unsourced rubbish. Uncle G 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - CrazyRussian ← rips out remaining hair... 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. There is nothing out of the ordinary in rewriting an article during an AfD discussion, and in fact, it frequently happens that a discussion that leads to delete will, after a rewrite, lead to keep. Any AfD discussion should be on the article as it stands. Spacepotato 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quesstion Usually, if an article is revised and nobody challenges the new form, isn't the deletion nomination withdrawn? Why, if I may ask (and not because I doubt you have a good reason, only because I truly don't understand), do you want us to vote on an old edition of an article? GassyGuy 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namechecking

Nonnotable neologism. It had previously been tagged with {{prod}} but the tag was removed and replaced with an "unreferenced" tag. Referenced or not, I don't see the notability here. Powers 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be easily covered in Product placement. Alr 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as deprodder. I think that this is a sufficiently different concept to product placement to deserve its own article; product placement involves a definite transaction between the advertiser and the entertainer, whereas namechecking is done entirely "voluntarily" - the ubiquity, of, say, Cristal champagne within a certain genre of music isn't because Cristal's manufacturer has given any sort of reward to rap artists, which (as I see it) moves it out of the ambit of product placement. However, I agree that the article requires references to prove that "Namechecking" is the established term for this phenomenon. If such references aren't forthcoming, I would support the article's deletion. Tevildo 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, though I still contend that it's a nonnotable phenomenon. Brand names have been in songs for as long as there's been brand names. =) Powers 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tevildo Artw 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the list as it could go on forever. The article itself could be expanded, perhaps with a (referenced) history of namechecking. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has been without references since created. WP:VERIFY. Paul Cyr 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a dicdef to me at the moment. Inner Earth 18:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand the list and article. Thankyoubaby 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the terms are "product placement", "name dropping" and whatever the term for using brand names in the place of generic is called (like ping pong). This is just a neologism. -- Kjkolb 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uvaizur Rahuman

The article does not appear to assert the notability of the subject and appears to be a sort of advertisement. I came upon this in search of an article to copy-edit, but besides the need for copyediting, there doesn't seem to be enough notability for Uvaizur Rahuman to have an article (also note that User:Uvaizur rahman has a small autobiography of himself in userspace instead). Cowman109^Talk 17:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nice guy, but I have to recommend Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Powers 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heavens folks, the article asserts that he's a leading radio journalist in Sri Lanka, and has been on national radio there for 11 years. Also, he's been a cricket commentator for his country's national team (which is a big deal in cricket-playing countries). NawlinWiki 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn. Also WP is not a webhost for his resume. Lack of sources and citations looks like original research, also. Tychocat 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Sam Vimes 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is a resume rather than an encyclopedia article and despite existing since February, it has no references at all. -- Kjkolb 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Omega

Taking this to AfD because there seems to be some dispute about importance. I read the talk page and I'm not convinced this is notable - fraternities/sororities have a precedent of being deleted. Article has an advertisement tone, as well. Crystallina 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per CSD A7. There's no assertion of notability here. The description could fit any number of other organizations. Powers 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note only a few hundred Google hits, most of them things like "...Alpha Omega. Omega..." or non-notable listings of all fraternities. Powers 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, original research. If WP:CORP applied, AOO would fail due to lacking multiple non-trivial news articles. I find a lot of frat listings, and a couple of MySpace hits instead. Tychocat 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable frat/sorority. Amazinglarry 01:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently this fraternity exists at only one university, and student organizations which exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 06:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce's Law

The article was added by the purported inventor Christopher Joyce. No trace of either on Google, except a questionable one on http://www.salestraininginc.com/newsletter/2004/may/ (no idea if this is the same "law".) From the way the Wikipedia article is written, I'd say it's most likely a practical joke. But please do correct me if I'm missing something. Travelbird 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete waffle and pish - total nonsense David Humphreys 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mr Stephen 11:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Travelbird. -- Kjkolb 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oooh It Might Be Him

band of questionable notability. No hits except for myspace Travelbird 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Powers 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FakeAlibi

advertisement for a questionable fake-alibi service Travelbird 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. A CSD for blatant advertising would be helpful, but I assume it's been considered before and rejected. =( Powers 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, it's an ad. WilyD 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to Isha Foundation and cleaned-up. I'll nominate the new article. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

Non-notable, probably self written. It was origionally written with a lot of POV. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Powers 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob ert 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Highlands Golf Club

Delete advertisement, WP:CORP. Been here since January - awful! Gotta spruce up the crap patrols, people! - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant ad per nom. Powers 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Talk about a sales pitch! Also I believe there are factual issues with the article. Better to start from scratch if it deserves an article. Vegaswikian 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert Brian 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Davison

Vanity, vanity, vanity ! David Humphreys 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: CSD A7. Db added. –Dicty (T/C) 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy. §hanel 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George bush is a dumbass

POV David Humphreys 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A6. Powers 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A6, already tagged. TheProject 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAFAN H.

Vanity David Humphreys 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, A7 - no assertion of notability. Tagging it. Powers 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Totally non-notable. Dipics 18:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch

Article fails to do much other than link to a blog. Artw 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline A3 speedy. Powers 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is the 17th biggest blog in the world, and has a reasonable Alexa rank (~1000) http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=techcrunch.com . Also, it has nearly 80,000 readers to it's RSS feed (as you can see in the image on their blog) Computerjoe 's talk 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added a few extra sentences Computerjoe 's talk 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure advertisement. Also WP is not a web directory. Tychocat 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand per Computerjoe. --Pboyd04 00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a blog worthy of an entry. --Gary King 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TechCrunch is a perfect example of a viral business blog that addresses the market demand for strategic insight on Web 2.0 companies, business models, and overall utility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.225.42 (talk • contribs)
Keep Needs much expansion though. TechCrunch is seen by some observers as being the authority on new Web 2.0 web sites. NRTurner 22:36 02 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Grue 14:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaux

I'm not quite sure having a list of portmanteaux is that great of an idea. The only advantage a list has over a category is that the list would indicate which two words have been blended. However, this list is somewhat unmaintainable, is prone to bundles and bundles of neologisms/protologisms, and even has a bunch of self-references (indeed, if we were to include Wiktionary, Wikipedia, et al., we'd have to include every company name that is a portmanteau). Heck, it even includes "-cruft". Hence, I'm going to call this list, "wordcruft". TheProject 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Portmanteau. Interesting enough to keep. If most of the examples didn't have articles, I'd say delete, but most of them do. Powers 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like most Wikipedia lists, this one is really, really, really, lame, but as long as we have separate articles for each of these portmanteaux, there is nothing that says they can't or shouldn't be compiled into a list. I'd like to see sources cited for the entries that don't have their own article, though. wikipediatrix 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what categories are for? TheProject 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories can't explain the origin of portmanteaux. Powers 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither should encyclopedias. The origin of words are etymologies. Etymologies are part of Wiktionary's remit, not ours. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Lamentation :( 10:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of these pages ended up getting deleted a while ago because a user decided to merge them all into a single, messy article. I salvaged this one because it does have some use. —Xezbeth 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but add a truncated list to the main portmanteau article. This isn't an exhaustive list, it's just what people happen to have thought of / made up. It's full of suspect entries (anacronym, anecdata, blacronym and that's only from the first few lines) and they're getting more numerous all the time. There's no point in trying to list portmanteaux because they get coined constantly and fall out of use as readily as they are created. A shorter list of well known ones that are in common use and that will be around for some time to come in the main article would be much better.--Lo2u 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because a category will serve well enough and portmanteus multiply like rabbits, making the list criteria too indiscriminate. Full disclosure, I have an unhealthy distaste of portmanteaus. hateless 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lo2u. Categories may not explain the origin, but if the article for each is at all decent, then it will, so the information should be available. GassyGuy 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of words whose sole selection criterion is lexicographic. It should properly belong only at Wiktionary; the Wiktionarians are much better equipped than we are to determine whether a word (as opposed to a thing) is something that was simply made up in school one day. (Such as "blaccent" currently on our list, a refugee from Urban Dictionary. Most of the other redlinks are probably similar cases.) They, in fact, have their own Category:Portmanteaus, which is much more useful than this list: if you're browsing a list of words that are interesting only because of the way they're constructed, you're more likely to want to see the histories and meanings of the words themselves, which is present in Wiktionary's entries (and generally lacking in our articles). Our own Category:Portmanteaus is just barely tolerable. This redundant and forever-incomplete, inaccurate, and original-research-prone list is not. Delete. —Lamentation :( 10:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Dunc|☺ 12:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This, naturally, is bad-faith retaliation for this. —Lamentation :( 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Wikipediatrix and LtPowers. This one's actually vaguely useful, for a list. Plus it's interesting. Suntiger 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wondering, how many of the keep voters would object to the list being moved to the main portmanteau page? If the list were a little less open-ended, a list of notable portmanteaux as a demonstration and clarification of the substance of the article itself perhaps, it would be an even more useful tool and something more suitable for an encyclopaedia. Whatever happens to the list I don't think anyone can disagree that a lot needs to go. I imagine most people get to this page from the portmanteau article so we could add a link to the Wiktionary list in place of the old one and I think it would be a fairly seamless improvement. The existence of a list article just enourages people to add increasingly obscure, unverifiableand and silly words that are notable for nothing other than that they are portmanteaux. --Lo2u 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting, useful article for grammar/linguistics purposes - CNichols 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. TheProject 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin thomas

Vanity - No content (yet) but username and article have same name David Humphreys 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Original content was "Austin is amazing and better than Jordan Thomas." I tagged it for db-bio, then author blanked it. Fan1967 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I have tagged it with db-empty (db-bio also fits). --Fuhghettaboutit 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Per nomination, vanity bio, and nonsense. :-( אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bonchune

Vanity - People are being extremely vain today !!! David Humphreys 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- no assertion of notability. Powers 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - He has an impressive list of credits on IMDB. The effects artist of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Apollo 13, Enterprise and others. Not quite as well-known a name as Ken Perlin, but well known in digital effects.
- They'd be more impressive if he was actually credited in those shows. =) Powers 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes people prefer to be in the background. ;-) Either way, the article can't stay the way it is. It needs attention, or a deletion. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The effects artist? No, I don't think so. And as for Sometimes people prefer to be in the background, 1) WP:V: not just a good idea, it's the law. 2) How did he manage to hide when the credits were being compiled? --Calton | Talk 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. --Jonathan Watson 20:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Watson[reply]
Delete, non-notable. I checked some of his credits on IMDB, and it's odd how he's not listed for either Babylon 5, or Deep Space 9, two major shows. I even saw a Foley artist listed as "uncredited". Tychocat 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity bio: IMDB shows a smaller list than claimed, and they show him to be basically a glorified technician. That few credits do NOT qualify as "impressive". --Calton | Talk 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go to www.Eden FX.com . It has Rob's name listed. Eden Fx is listed to animating Surface, since he didn't play a big role in the process.--Jonathan Watson 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Watson[reply]
Delete not a notable person and a very poorly written article. If kept it needs serious cleanup. Gwernol 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; one of many (non-notable) minor technical contributors on a small number of works. --MCB 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is good, just needs some help on it. --Jimmy McCutcheon 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Jimmy McCutcheon User's 4th edit -- and the first outside of creating his useer page[reply]
Delete. Five alarm sockpuppet alert. RFerreira 03:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now edited it. It is better thatn before. Please take a look. --Jonathan Watson 14:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Watson[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to David Beckham, there is nothing seriously problematic with the article that it needs to be deleted before the redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Beckham

Delete Article was previously listed for deletion and result was merge and redirect. Then CalJW came along a few days later and reestablished the article claiming that it was blatant misconduct to close the discussion after a day of debate. Relisting here as subject is a child who does not meet WP:BIO. Simply being the child of a celebrity is not notable for inclusion, article should be redirected again to David Beckham. Previous AFD discussion below. Batman2005 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Mom or Dad (I don't care which) per every single AfD we've had on anyone named Jolie-Pitt, or Federline-Spears, or whatever. Fan1967 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. --DarkAudit 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and is not a speedy delete candidate in the meantime. At the moment, the child meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note, its a recreation of a deleted page, therefore a speedy delete candidate. And could you elaborate as to how the child meets WP:BIO?Batman2005 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page was never deleted. The page was merged, however, and G4 doesn't cover reversed merges. Someone could have simply redone the merge instead of bringing it to AfD, but it can't really be merged now with the tag there. As for WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I'll also note that, as usual with these articles, there's no real clear redirect point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good arguments, however you trip up on "non-trivial published works." The books are fiction that bare only his name. The child himself has done nothing notable in my opinion to warrant inclusion. Simply being born isn't involvement in a newsworthy event. The merging of a page and re-directing is a deletion of the pages initial article itself. Recreating a merged or re-directed page has in the past been speedy deleted. It's a grey area of the policy, but I've seen it happen. Let me also point to all the articles for the Holmes-Cruise baby, or the Jolie-Pitt baby, all of them....who were also born under media attention, are currently parts of their parents articles until the child does something themselves to warrant inclusion. Batman2005 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only trip up on them because they haven't made the article. Among the available articles include the following citations: [60] [61] [62]. i'd find more, but i'm already bored with the celebrity nonsense, and none of these touch on his birth, either. I'm not sure they've ever been speedy deleted, as the redirects have to stay up for a reason, but there's no real speedy policy for it that I'm aware of. Regardless, I've disagreed with the consensus in the two AfDs you cite, and I'm disagreeing with people here, too. Par for the course for me. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, par for the course is still good though! Batman2005 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the "non-trivial" references. I think a very good argument can be made that, aside from the actual report of the birth, nothing written about these kids can be described as "non-trivial". Four-year-old plays soccer with other kids, or has a birthday party, or gets a present? Trivial. The parents also have a lot of trivial coverage, but have non-trivial reports, too (plays in World Cup, records platinum-selling album). Fan1967 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recreate and redirect to Papa. All the Pitt kids and the other Beckham kids get redirected. The only reason this wasn't is that the redirect decision was reversed out of process. MLA 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate and redirect to David Beckham Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of his parents per nom and below. —Wh o uk (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Daddy as before Peterkingiron 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. People are simply jealous of his fame, and want him gone. He's a lot more famous than many people who have articles here. Skinnyweed 13:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a pretty ridiculous comment, I am in no way jealous of this kid, I do however believe in the notability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? If not then please refrain from taking up page space with those types of comments. Batman2005 15:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is marginally noteable. Being the Becks eldest, he has the potential to become more noteable over time with media coverage. Similarly, one could imagine Prince William wouldn't have had a terribly noteable article at seven either. It's also worthwhile to note that it isn't exactly fair to redirect to only one of his parents. Mystache 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging any useful information into parents article. The fact that it was recreated should be enough to the that user blocked. FordTuffinIt 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armor Lock & Safe Co., Inc.

Blatant advertising David Humphreys 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Smells like spam, looks like spam, it IS spam! Dipics 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-G7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estwtfc

NN Nonsense David Humphreys 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't agree that it is nonsense, but I do agree that it is NN and I think it meets the A7 criteria for speedy deletion because it does not assert notability. Irongargoyle 18:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Within Temptation. Powers 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it should be deleted then. I wasn't sure it would go through, but I gave it a try anyway because this wasn't commercial to a business, more like article about a small organisazation. Delete it."(author of the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybro (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly tobacco

Spam / advertising. -- Szvest 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete laughably blatant ad. Powers 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spelling your product's name wrongly in your ad copy must represent a new low of some kind. Tevildo 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. -- Docether 20:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm from Dubuque, IA, work at a printing press as a graphic designer and am in no way affiliated with any maker of chewing tobacco, so in response to you're ignorant claims as an ad you're completley wrong. I chew Grizzly, thats its. And as for you Tevildo, what must represent a new low is the fact Grizzly is spelled right. Wow, I'll open your mouth and insert your foot for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkuhle3 (talk • contribs)

Comment - Jkuhle3, please maintain civility at all times on Wikipedia as you can be blocked from editing for making personal attacks. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. Sorry Jkuhle3 but just because you don't work for them doesn't mean that you can't write an ad for them. If you do feel that this is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry please exapand it to demonstrate that. If you expand it I may reconsider. --Pboyd04 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergii Bratusov

Vanity and advertising David Humphreys 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete vanity Dipics 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. Wikipedia is not a resume service. Powers 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 per nom. Tevildo 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A6 and A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hoggan

Vanity and/or POV David Humphreys 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone poisoning

fundamentally POV and unencyclopedic concept. wikipediatrix 19:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. wikipediatrix 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable term in widespread use. Powers 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per LtPowers. Article provides more than enough references to prove that the term is in common use, but it might require a little bit of OR-removal to get it comfortably within WP:NEO. Tevildo 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not sure that "more than enough references" is true... must we have an article devoted to every term coined by anyone? What's next: "Mimbo"? "You go, girl"? "Dy-no-mite"? Secondly, if this article must exist, it needs to be renamed to Testosterone poisoning (term) or something, then, because this article has nothing to do with actual testosterone poisoning and is misleading. wikipediatrix 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of mid-Nov 2005, the article has contained references to about ten scientific articles which most closely relate to the validity of this popular notion. I'm not sure what more could be asked for. Pete.Hurd 23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Needs some clean-up. Artw 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may be a stupid idea, but it is notable. WilyD 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Also should be Moved per wikipediatrix (although I'm not sure Testosterone poisoning (term) is the best alternate title). Irongargoyle 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some other kind of "testosterone poisoning" that needs to be disambiguated? If not, and we create Testosterone poisoning (slang) or whatever, won't we just redirect this article to that one? In which case, why bother? Powers 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable but cleanup. Englishrose 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as it seems to be fairly well-known, but it seems to be a neologism (would 20 years old be still considered a neologism?). It needs cleanup regardless. --ColourBurst 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral comment I've contributed to one section this article (specifically the part dealing with scientific evidence not linking testosterone to aggressive behaviour in the simple causal method that the subject of this article, and popular wisdom assume). I think the article documents a notable view (I dislike the term "meme", but it does imply what I mean in this context) and treats it an a reasonably encylopeic manner. Since putting this article on my watchlist, I've been really surprised that it attracts such vehement, ideologically driven, attention. Pete.Hurd 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm really not interested in the content of this article outside of the section on empirical evidence linking androgens and behaviour, and have no opinion on whether the article as a whole should be kept. Pete.Hurd 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable term in broad use, at least in America. Atlant 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per wikipediatrix. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're Here

NN musicians David Humphreys 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The band (Guillemots (band) seem to be comfortably within WP:MUSIC, but I'm not sure if that means all of their releases are automatically notable. Tevildo 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guillemots (band) are notable enough, it seems, and there's pretty much a Wikipedia tradition that if a band is notable, it logically follows that their albums and songs are fair game for articles - especially if they have multiple releases which would make their own article unwieldy if their detailed discography was broken down there. wikipediatrix 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band are seemingly becoming increasingly successful and two other singles have their own article pages on Wikipedia. TG312274 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albums by notable bands. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as an attack page Joyous! | Talk 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe lobban

Vanity David Humphreys 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity/Offensive

Speedy delete Brian 19:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A3. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes/changelog.

It is just a link to iTunes - din't see the point, really David Humphreys 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonball

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A kids' game made up a few weeks ago. Fan1967 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I also tried tagging it for speedy A7. Author keeps removing the tags. Fan1967 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. I was thinking about this one, but wasn't sure. Check Animalball aswell David Humphreys 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Chet nc _contribs^talk 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because this game has been largely invented by "kids" doesn't constitute a reason for deletion, it is infact a game devised many years ago by parents of the games inventers and recently adapted and given a new name. It is a fun game and definately worthy of a place in wikipedia. Chris_125

Comment Any user can check the history of the article. First you said it was invented June 7, 2006. Then 2004. Then 1904. Then 1954. I believe you were telling the truth the first time. Fan1967 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its only because I dont want the article to be deleted, I don't see what you have against it anyway Chris_125

Please add comments at the bottom. It is a local game played by a few kids in a small area, not appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Fan1967 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm tempted to say that Wikipedia is not for things made up in (Cottenham) one day, but let it pass, let it pass. Regardless of how fun this game might be, "fun" is not the measure by which AfDs are resolved ... and, as this article does not present verifiable evidence of its subject's notability, it should be deleted. Best, Docether 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fast growing sport I believe has a future. Wikipedia prides itself on providing information on a wide range of subject matter; many other subjects a lot smaller than Simonball have entries. I also do not appreciate your condescending tone especially since you know nothing about Simonball other than what I have written and you don't know anything about me or anyone else who plays it hence making your use of the term "kids" inappropriate since many adults as well as "kids" play it. I would accept constructive criticism as to how the article could be improved Chris_125

One of the rules is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No one can predict the future. Can you show verifiable evidence from reliable sources that the game is widely played today? Has it been featured in newspapers, on web news sites, on TV? Fan1967 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot offer proof in the form of newspapers or websites that Simonball is widely played since it has only been played for a short period in recent times. I do know, however, all those who have played Simonball have enjoied the game immensly (hence having over 100 regular players as it has become an un-official college sport). This is the reason why I have spent my evening creating this article, in order to get publicity so that Simonball can spread and then maybe I can show you some proof in the form of newspapers or TV reports. Chris_125

My name is Adam and I feel it appropriate to concur with Chris_125. As a player of Simon ball myself I think it necessary that I put forward my judgment here. Chris has put foreword some very valid points, and I can confirm that many people at many different colleges in our area have discovered Simon ball and Staff are considering running it in schools. I don’t think you have enough evidence to disrespect the game in question as you do not know enough about the enjoyment that many "kids" AND adults get from playing it, therefore I think you should take back your criticism and put somewhere better deserved. As were on the subject of disrespect, the "Line of Tony" is named so because this is where a friend of Chris and I lost his life. This is another reason I feel it is appropriate for me to put my opinion foreword. I hope you will reconsider your words and let Simon ball takes its course.

Yours sincerely.

Adam Nimmo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnie-nemo (talk • contribs)

User's only edit. —Whomp [T] [C] 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I'm sure youre game is great fun, but it needs to be notable to deserve a Wikipedia article. When it's popular enough to be mentioned in the national press, then you can resubmit the article. Until then - Delete per nom. Tevildo 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not notable and admitted fraud by author. --DarkAudit 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP not for things made up one day, original research, nn. Tychocat 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think WP:NFT says it all. -- Kicking222 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands right now this isn't very notable. If it is gaining players and support as claimed please resubmit the article when it is notable. --Pboyd04 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to refer to the comment made Mr Danny Lilithborne and say that over here in Harrisonburg, West Virginia, we also play a similar game to simonball and it has entertained the people of our community for generations. I would also like to say that this article has helped us due to the fact that we are now very clear on the different rules and regulations of the game known in england as Simonball!I think that this is a renowed sport and that it should be recognised on this most prestigious internet encyclopedia. Long Live America and SIMONBALL!

Howard. G. McNakey, Harrisonburg (HowardMcNackey123)

Hi I think that simon ball is one of the greatest sports of the modern era. There is no possiable way you can delete this. Simon ball is not just a sport played by kids in a small village but its an art. Art is not somthing you can simply just delete but is an important part of todays modern society. If you feel that it is appropriate to delete this article then mabye you should try the sport before you criticise it.

KEEP SIMON BALL!!!

Master Maton

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Films Ltd.

Fails WP:CORP, gets zero google news hits WilyD 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; couldn't this have been prod'd rather than coming to AFD ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What now? Prod'd? Sorry, I'm still slightly n00bish WilyD 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasheed Adeyemi

Doesn't make sense. fails google test. Hoax Abdelkweli 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CQJ 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and probably WP:VANITY; I don't see that it's a hoax, just not notable, rather like the related Century Home Healthcare Services LLC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris D'Angelis

NN Sportsman Zero Ghits David Humphreys 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, POV essay. --Ezeu 06:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global thermal control

Someone's original research/opinion on Global warming NawlinWiki 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR. Tevildo 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was libellous; deleted and redirected to Freedom fries. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Rowland

NN bio David Humphreys 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris RPG Online

Non-notable online text game. Also bundling the following: Kwin Alexander Dark and Second Flux as extensions of the same subject. Oh, and this one too: Eatherling Delete all. RasputinAXP c 19:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. This tiny online community also created articles for many of their individual player characters, making them look as if they were notable game components. Most of those have already been deleted. Also, there's been some phony user activity associated with removing "prod" tags applied to articles related to this game. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Phony account created to appear to be me. --John Nagle 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I enjoy a good text game it's still nn delete all BJK 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, user base simply too small. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously those articles to go. Yet they were so well written. I encourage the authors of those articles to contribute usefully to Wikipedia. We need more good writers here. --John Nagle 23:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise NCC-1701-G

Fancruft. Plus there is no 1701-G on Memory Alpha. BJK 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to nomination, as they are also part of the same non-notable PBeM game (suggest relisting under Scousers Fleet):

Scousers Fleet
USS Lexington NCC-1709-B
USS Ambassador NCC-21702-A
USS Harwood NCC-42006
USS Illustrious NCC-21492
Imperial Storm Fleet

A minor fanfic game with probably only a single group of participants fails WP:NOT on several levels. Ace of Risk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft... There is nothing canonical between NCC-1701-F & NCC-1701-J.--Isotope23 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extending deletion opinion to all later included articles.--Isotope23 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft. Artw 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I remember deleteing Enterprise - H somewhere along the way but I can't find the discussion. --Pboyd04 00:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. or merge to Starship Enterprise. -- GWO
Delete - only appears in Scousers Fleet, which should probably also be up for AfD - actually all of [63] those need looking at, as there seems to be a large proportion relating to an un-notable PBeM game (done). Ace of Risk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - located one google reference, leading to this forum post - not good! Ace of Risk 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is the same thing FASA got in trouble with Paramoutn over...making up their own hisotry of Star Trek. It is considered taboo among many fans to have a sim centered around the flagship of the Federation, let alone a future version. Lord_Hawk 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advantium Oven

NN Kitchen equipment and advertising David Humphreys 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete Non-Notable and spam. Dipics 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cannot be speedy deleted. Does not come under existing speedy delete criteria: CSD-A7 says "a real person, group of people, band, or club" - this is kitchen equipment. 'Spam' is not a speedy delete criterion at all. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand corrected, or at least sit. Spam/Advertising would make a great speedy criteria though. Vote changed as noted above. Dipics 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. And I've reached my limit today. Tychocat 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's too commercial now and is probably a copyright violation. I don't have a problem with it being recreated to talk about the technical aspects and advantages and disadvantages. It is a combination of microwaving and baking, so the difference is real and is not a marketing ploy. -- Kjkolb 12:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Gwernol 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwslipochemy

No google hits [64] and it is not in the dictionary, delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. TeaDrinker 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as malarkey. GassyGuy 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per existing tag, nonsense NawlinWiki 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had thought about a speedy, but it did not seem to be strictly patent nonsense. If there were some indication of notability, it might be worth including in Wikipedia (although I am not hopeful in this regard. To quote from the article, "It is said that the art form was created by two computer techs who were under a constant barrage of inept theories from their customers.") --TeaDrinker 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Välimäki

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikko Välimäki (December 2005), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mikko Välimäki (even earlier)

This article has remained a vanity stub since its first AFD, and no verifiable references have been provided since, other than a link to Välimäki's personal blog. If these claims cannot be backed up, the article should be deleted, or optionally merged to Electronic Frontier Finland. RFerreira 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Electronic Frontier Finland per nom. Irongargoyle 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep and expand but this article was created in 2004 and is still a stub! Delete. —EdGl 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. BTW, this is the third AfD, not the second. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is heard and seen in Finnish media quite often, i think that makes him notable enough. bbx 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unexpandable substub that was around for ages. Grue 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mango juice^talk 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPG Revolution

A server for Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, with 42 members and InvisionFree forums. It has no capacity to be independantly verified, etc etc. Nifboy 20:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:WEB. Also CSD A7 an article about a group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject may apply.--blue520 15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn server with only 42 members. —EdGl 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability. -LtNOWIS 06:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbaksh Chahal

nonnotable, vanity Hornplease 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. Creator & article's share the same name. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 20:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say merge with BlueLithium, which seems to be at least somewhat notable, but since it has no current article it would be best to just delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. What's a defensible innovative technological solution in the ad network space? On second thoughts I don't actually want to know. Dlyons493 Talk 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Feel he passes WP:BIO [65][66]. Needs cleanup. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable within his field.[67] Eluchil404 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity, as cited above. Created by subject, and a check of his contribs shows this is his only contrib to the wiki...sounds like simple self-promotion. If there's so many awards, why doesn't he list them? Genuine awards and a record of published works would more strongly support notability. Akradecki 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a nobody, but presenting at conferences and starting a few start ups or making a few million does not make one notable. It may make you feel important but not notable to the greater public or even in the smaller web advertising business world.--Nick Y. 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Y and Akradecki. ImpuMozhi 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mango juice^talk 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Foundation

Bear with me here: this was originally a CSD-A7 case nominated (above) for AfD deletion. I was about to CSD-A7 it, when I saw the middle section - about what the guy does, rather than about the guy himself - would make a servicable stub. So I moved the article (the original article name makes a good redirect), cleaned it up and stubbed it. However, the result is probably still a bit non-notable for Wikipedia purposes. Therefore I appeal for people with knowledge of NGOs and this type of charity to express expert opinion here. This is a technical nomination, no opinion is being expressed by me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a legit NGO. I've added a link to a news source documenting some of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)
- comment Sorry about forgeting the four tildas! Akradecki 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Ajradecki -- Librarianofages 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notability is claimed, but not enough sources are provided to verify the claims. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral consequences of criminal convictions

Does not appear to warrant an encyclopedic entry. Been on wikify list since March and no one has thought it important enough to write a real article about Akradecki 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's just a definition. Not encyclopaedic. WilyD 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Nick Y. 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic. --Heidijane 08:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, already transwikied. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyisms

This article and the other Laheyisms are both in Wikiquote along with Quotes from Bubbles. In order to just "officially" finish the whole transwiki process, I just need clarity on this two articles since I suggested them from Transwiki and the closing nom did not mention them. So, I am just asking for an affirmation of the transwiki, since in order to properly finish the whole thing, I need to run the article through AfD. So, Laheyisms is inculded in this nom. Yanksox ^(talk) 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quotes from Bubbles AfD and Trailer Park Boys Quotes from Wikiquote. Yanksox ^(talk) 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since they're transwiki'd, they can go from here, where they ain't belong. WilyD 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy A5~~ per the above. Tevildo 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify, in order for a speedy A5, I need to have this discussion closed, I also have the history of the two articles ready and will post them on Wikiquote once this is done. Yank sox 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry. Strong Delete per nom, in that case. Tevildo 21:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this should absolutely be included in the trailer park boys article

Comment Should perhaps be merged with Malapropism - nkife 06:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Stuart

Very few google hits. Seems to be an obvious vanity article. My vote would be Speedy Delete Dipics 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO and this is an apparent WP:AUTO violation as well. I was going to say offer a userfy, but this has already been done.--Isotope23 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Isotope23 above. Beaner1 22:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope23. Asserts notability (redefined online filmed entertainment distribution no less) so not a speedy candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gone with the wind. Blown away by Xezbeth. Kimchi.sg 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farting in Ireland

Subject is barely encyclopedic (why is Ireland special?), it is likely that little which is WP:V can be written about the subject, and the article as it stands is hopelessly juvenile (and completely unreferenced). I doubt that this one can--or should--be expanded into a WP:GA or anything close. While I ought to do better at assuming good faith, this looks to me to be a joke article, not a serious treatment of the subject. EngineerScotty 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, this is ridiculous. wikipediatrix 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. And this is nonsense. --DarkAudit 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Ziggurat 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. DS 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosey Fanni Tutti

does not meet the Notability (erotic actors) criteria - for example she has been in under 40 films (http://www.coseyfannitutti.com/) Springnuts 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article barely mentions her erotic career, so I don't see how that criterion applies. The question is whether she satisfies WP:MUSIC. Based on the information at her band's article, Throbbing Gristle, it would seem she does. Fan1967 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards keep. There is not quite enough info, but her overall career - if accurate - seems notable. The 40 movies is a guidline more aimed at todays actors who are in -shrug- 40 per year. Marilyn chambers didnt do 40. Looking for references.Obina 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC seems the right yardstick as noted by Fan1967 above and her association with Throbbing Gristle (oh, how we sniggered at that in 1977) suffices. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly under WP:MUSIC but her other activities warrent her own entry outside of the existing TG article. Ac@osr 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable in indie music circles for her work with Throbbing Gristle, etc. Meets several WP:MUSIC criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable alone for here involvement with seminal industrial band Throbbing Gristle, also well-known for her solo art work and collaborations with Chris Carter Mujinga 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Viridae ^Talk 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian McMahon

The author, User:Beta, has been creating a number of articles for professors at Dublin City University. Beta said on his/her talk page: "The Irish academics category was very small, I thought I'd do my bit to flesh it out a bit." While I appreciate the effort, I don't see any notability asserted. Nomination withdrawn, see below. Aplomado ^talk 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed for possible deletion:

I may have missed a few, but that appears to be most of them.

--Aplomado ^talk 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. The ones I looked at seem to have a number of publications, possibly making them notable enough. These all need to be assessed individually. up+land 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Beta made the following point on his/her talk page: Many of the academics on the first part of the notable academics list Here are well known in Ireland and have been on debating programmmes on television over here. Aplomado ^talk 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example Michael Cronin is one of the most prominent translation experts in Ireland and Peadar Kirby is regularly consulted on political issues on television in Ireland. He is also the head of the Centre for international studies in Dublin City University.

If you wish to start removing some of them you should try to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant using some criteria like the google search criteria, the number of publications or the importance of publications Beta

Comment Even though it's a pain, I agree we should take these on a case-by-case basis. Some of these professors only have one book listed. Does this meet the notability requirement? It's really tough to determine without the context a longer description would give. That's why I put the {{context}} tags on some of the articles (although it got to the point where they were being posted faster than I could keep up). Irongargoyle 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. I'll withdraw the nomination for now. I think Beta has a better idea now what is notable and what is not. That stuff you mentioned about Cronin should be put in the article and sourced. I think we should give Beta a little time to improve the articles that are notable so that we can exclude them from the ones that are not. Aplomado ^talk 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to sort them out this weekend. Beta

I suppose that these articles are a bit obscure and could be removed immediately, I think the rest require more consideration.

Beta

Comment left on your talk page regarding {{db-author}}. Viridae ^Talk 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus trending towards keep. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BitTorrent open source License

Transwiki to WikiSource, else delete. This does not belong here. Articles named after software licenses are usually informative and encyclopedic, not just carbon copies of the license verbatim. See GPL, GDFL, and BSD license. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and stub, which I'm doing. I need something to do and I'll get on it. Captainktainer * Talk 04:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, the bloody thing has at least been partially transwikied. I'm convinced I'm not doing it right; it would be nice to have a guide on Meta or somewhere specifically dedicated to moving articles from Wikipedia to Wikisource, because the m:Transwiki article is... confusing. I'm working on writing an actually informative stub for the article. UPDATE: I just realized that if I wipe the page and start over, I could be interfering in the AfD and in the transwiki process. I'm not going to start until I know whether to start a new article (that conforms to the Manual of Style in its title) or wipe the current page and start over. Captainktainer * Talk 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could be fixed to be a reasonably informative page comparatively to the GPL license and other related pages. Ansell 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki unless someone actually wants to write the article Ansell mentions right above me. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont mind a transwiki myself for the same reasons. Ansell 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This page contains an interesting discussion of wikipedia's statement of license, considering that the "BitTorrent open source license" is not OSI approved. Not sure how this is relevant to this discussion but it was a piece of material I found while attempting to gather sources for a proper page. Ansell 02:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the page as a stub noting the controversy over the use of the "Open Source" trademark considering the lack of official OSI approval. Ansell 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Keepable as it is now. --Ezeu 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiSource or redirect to BitTorrent.--John Lake 06:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I remind those calling for transwiki that the license text has already been transwikied to Wikisource. The page is at present a stub article about the license. Spacepotato 08:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin A. Pell III

Another article with campaign literature for a candidate. Fan1967 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn unless he wins.--Nick Y. 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of several in an organised campaign to get publicity for these candidates. I hate WP being used in this way. BlueValour 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No nomination=no article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now since he's a current candidate in a major party congressional primary. Bring back up for AFD in September if he loses in the primary. But not just yet. KleenupKrew 11:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not terribly relevant to the primary, hasn't made much of a splash, and fails WP:V in spades. I'd reconsider on a major rewrite. Captainktainer * Talk 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Evan Syatt

First year journalism student who had some articles printed in the university paper. Pure vanity piece at best, and it smells like a hoax. People are also playing games regarding the deletion [68] [69] [70] and on the article Talk: page [71] using false edit summaries. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; 2 google hits. One, if you discount the Wikipedia link. RFerreira 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
article should be renamed "David Syatt"; will not fall under deletion per nominator
Delete per nom- even under David Syatt I feel this will fail to meet criteria for notability. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is either being vandalized or hoaxified, but the fact that the article describes Syatt as a professor while Syatt's own college newspaper articles describe him as a college freshman does not bode well for the article's accuracy. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The creators first claimed his birthdate was 1987,[72] [73] and then days later changed it to 1957,[74] perhaps because they realized a 1987 date would be incompatible with their claim that he was a college professor. It's looking more and more like a hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-verifiable and most likely a non-notable hoax. Yamaguchi先生 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - has already been speedied once Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy Delete, attack article. pschemp | talk 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Dicdef. Delete abakharev 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seond warning? Artw 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not so concerned with the definitional nature, but more the self-referential aspect of the article. A link to the google results of "second warnings" on wikipedia? Creative... yes, but it seems to be a thinly veiled POV attack. Maybe some of this information could have a home in the WP namespace, but it's probably already there. Irongargoyle 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictdef, I'm guessing a thinly veiled WP:POINT by a disgruntled vandal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a very good definition. I've heard the phrase used outside Wikipedia, but never with a denotation other than the expected one when combining the words second and warning. GassyGuy 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, come on. SM247^{My Talk} 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. A self ref as much as Wikipedia is one.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, and there is no evidence that there actually is a distinct concept of a "second warning" for there to be an encyclopaedia article about. The article is an unreferenced stub that has no potential for expansion. Looking at Special:Contributions/Tobias Conradi (especially this edit which preceded the creation of this article by two minutes and the same editor's subsequent creation of Wikipedia:Second warning) it appears clear that this was never intended to be an encyclopaedia article, but is a byproduct of a dispute. Delete. Uncle G 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Was created because I warned him for the second time about name calling and personal attacks. pschemp | talk 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman ^{L} 04:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday White

Promotional vanity piece, claims to have "lay the foundation and tone adopted by today's bloggers" but does not contain anything in the way of references, not even a personal blog link. RFerreira 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; boarderline speedy, totally nn. —EdGl 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability line for webcomics should probably be drawn. And in my opinion (though not my vote, since I'm abstaining), that line can't be straddled by Wednesday and Websnark. Either both stay, or both go. -- Grev 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VAIN by WP:NN. I found this Google Group post interesting during my research. Maybe that should be popped into this article if it survives - at least it's *a* citation. --DaveG12345 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re Websnark mentioned in the previous discussion by Grev - FWIW, a blog with an Alexa rating of 177,000 can go as well, for me. --DaveG12345 17:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

Contested PROD. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. No more notable than thousands of other opera singers around the world. Delete. User:Angr 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; international tour meets WP:MUSIC. —EdGl 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an "international tour" doesn't make a musician notable. The article reads like a resume. She seems very promising and moderately successful but early in her career and unestablished. No amazon listing at all. 295 google hits most of which are wikipedia or mirrors. Zero eBay results (where you can sometimes find obscure artists.) Zero hits on Gracenote (a very complete database of nearly every CD in existence).--Nick Y. 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably because she is from Bulgaria, a non-English speaking country (the Internet is predominantly English). —EdGl 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the non-wikipedia related google hits are not in english. The official State Opera Web Site] only acknowledges her as a soloist among Stoyan Ivanov, Martin Iliev,Ivaylo Dzhurov, Alexander Krunev,Elena Baramova, Larisa Malici, Linka Stoyanova, Petya Dimitrova, Adreana Nikolova, Emilia Ivanova, Silvia Vasileva, Stoyan Daskalov, Sergey Gontovyy, Diman Panchev, Dobri Dobrev, Mila Koleva, Evgeni Dimitrov. She has yet to make List_of_Bulgarians, which may have dubious entries anyway. Orlin Goranov appears to stand out above the rest of the company but he does not have a wikipedia page. There are many opera singers in the world. I have nothing against Bulgarians but the opera which she is associated with is in a town of 164,000 people Stara Zagora. That is why they go on tour. I have non-notable friends that have sung parts in major metopolitan opera houses. --Nick Y. 00:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the group she's in is touring, and she's just one in the group. I'll change my vote then. Delete per Nick Y. —EdGl 02:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs clean-up but soprano soloists for state opera companies are more notable than plenty of bands that scrape through WP:MUSIC; she's toured, she's won awards, what's nn about that. Eluchil404 12:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company which she has been a member of for 1 year has toured, as they do every year. Nearly everyone in the company has the chance to solo. The awards she has won seem relatively non-notable. I think the opera company is notable even though it is small and from a small town, it has a long history, a dedicated building (sort of, it's actually multi-use)and the company tours neighboring countries.--Nick Y. 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice^talk 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Googling for Елена Баръмова throws up a reasonable number of Bulgarian hits (given that there aren't all that many Bulgarian sites to start with). It's not as though we're overwhelmed by articles on Bulgarian singers. Dlyons493 Talk 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep has a fairly impressive resume if we compare her with the film and television actors we tend to keep. Would like to see some sources to the award claims, therefore only a weak keep. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acklam Grange Secondary School

Non-notable school Artw 21:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons articulated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. Irongargoyle 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have been here too often; while there is a 50:50 split as to whether primary schools are notable there is a concensus that secondary (high) schools are. BlueValour 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per myself. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons articulated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. --DaveG12345 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tychocat 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to establish notability, because encyclopedias only cover notable topics. There is no policy or guideline as to what constitutes notability for schools - WP:SCHOOLS was rejected. This article contains a claim to notability. Is a "Specialist College" adequately notable? Specialist school tells us that "Currently there are over 2,000 specialist schools, over two thirds of the schools in England." That lets me know the answer - that is not an adequate claim to notability. I find no independent reliable sources among the 23 unique google hits that this search finds that establish anything more than that the school exists. And there were only 23 unique google hits, which for a secondary school is very minimal... so this is clearly not a topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. GRBerry 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but amenable to change if some notability is asserted, but not until. Articles about things which are inherently non-notable shouldn't be written without an assertion of notability from the get go. A hope by the creator than one will be added later by someone else is no substitute. Having said this, schools are usually kept one way or another. SM247^{My Talk} 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending some assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 07:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am trying to build up the utility of this article but I see that you have started to remove some of the information that I have added. BlueValour 07:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we keep senior/secondary/high school articles. Could do with a bit of wikification (& maybe enough info to fill an infobox too). Inner Earth
Keep Everyone knows that high school articles are kept so why nominate them? Golfcam 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems fine to me. I would respectfully ask the nom to flesh out his thinking. Three words are inadequate to justify removing a potentially valuable addition to our coverage of institutions of higher learning. --JJay 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to amplify my position. High (secondary) schools are pivotal places in the community, not only for the parents who send their kids there but for parents of primary children aiming at those schools, people who use the buildings out of hours etc. If someone looked up a high school in an online encyclopaedia would they expect to find it there? I think the answer is yes. Primary (elementary) schools are a different case. They are simply not nearly as important in the community. Also, I doubt if anyone would expect to find them here. For a primary school to be included it should be notable in its own right. BlueValour 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Wikipedia will never be completed. Ramseystreet 00:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete. Having schools on here isn't a bad thing since it will keep readers informed. An56 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bernstein (law professor)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bernstein (law professor) (September 2005).

Please forgive this relisting, but this article fails to mention much of anything, including any sort of importance or notability. Additionally, the page has remained an unreferenced stub since its inception and survival of the first AFD. RFerreira 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF as it stands. Tevildo 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. HeinOnline lists 21 law review articles; frequent blogger at Volokh Conspiracy, a prominent law blog; professor at a well-known university. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weak, strong, medium, fails WP:PROF. No independent articles citing as notable expert, no references as advisor to well-known student, etc. I'm sure he's published, everyone publishes. Being at a notable school does not make him notable, nor is being a frequent blogger - heck, I'd be notable then. Hey... no, never mind. Tychocat 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he passes WP:PROFTEST. Evidence: http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste/BernsteinCV.html. (editied the stub to include that) Viridae ^Talk 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viridae. He's written 4 books, reviewed all the heck over the place. The third on the list has won a prize. This article is in a crappy state, but eventually someone will improve it. Mango juice^talk 03:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep are you kidding? What Proftest? He co-runs a super-popular blog! And he passes Proftest, anyway... - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:43, 2 July 2006
- No, I wasn't kidding. How is the popularity of this blog being measured? It would be beneficial if that could be documented within the article. RFerreira 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. It's either the top or the #2 legal blog in the U.S. It's extremely well known. I've seen the rankings before, but I am not sure where to find them now. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 100th most popular blog worldwide per technorati [75] - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you Crazy Russian, that is very helpful. Looking at the Volokh Conspiracy article, it appears that there are at least 17 different contributors to this popular blog. Should all of them receive articles on Wikipedia? I am now convinced that we should keep the article on the blog, but not necessarily every single one of the bloggers who write for it. RFerreira 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No, DB is a major founder/contributor. There are only 4or 5 major ones there. Besides, he independently meets PROFTEST, as we have pointed out. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete all G7--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-recording, Real-time Intelligent Vehicle Communications and Intelligent Transportation Society of America

The first article is ostensibly about "Self-recording" but text makes clear this is about a "self-recording golf ball." Borders db-nonsense in opening techno-babble and the stumping for golf devices begins. See this talk page. Violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, etc. Note that author has created a number of other articles in this area, Emergency warning system for vehicles and Electromagnetic Golf tagged by me as as {{db-empty}}s.

The latter two nominations, Real-time Intelligent Vehicle Communications, and Intelligent Transportation Society of America are by the same author. They appear to me to an incestuous group of articles, all related to one another and to the author's site, noted above. The former is indiscriminately named, gives no context and is filled with techno jargon. May violate WP:OR and WP:SPAM as it appears to be out of content text for a product.

The latter is apparently a copy and paste job from the website (which does have a fair use notice posted at the bottom). However, it appear to still be a copyvio (as I originally tagged it) as searches turn up these two sites which between them have all the text: [76] and [77]. A google search also reveals that a company by that same name, advertizes Electromagnetic Golf company. I'm not sure if it comes under WP:CORP as it is a "society of America;" I have not researched if it has any official designation, but google search returns 723 unique hits [78], and in present form I would say it is an indiscriminate collection of information.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Real-time Intelligent Vehicle Communications has been speedy deleted, CSD g7--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was toppled into the category of articles without any context and speedily deleted. Kimchi.sg 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acolyte Fighter

Gamecruft Artw 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Nick Y. 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Nearly A1 territory. Tevildo 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Tevildo. --ColourBurst 23:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article provides no context. Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio.

Joe Fassler

Only 2 Google hits that I have spotted. Obviously a talented guy, starting out, but not yet notable. Sadly for his big theory - "Unfortunately, the absences in question were neither frequent nor proloned enough to allow a meaningful evaluation of the theories". BlueValour 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete nn--Nick Y. 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO; somewhere between vanity and comedy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. Tevildo 22:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepman

Seems to be a joke or hoax. "Sheepman is a popular character in the popular show Popular Drake and also Sheep". The show links to a redirect toDrake & Josh which is a legit show but I don't see teh relation. Delete as patent nonsense Nick Y. 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google hits for Sheepman + "Drake & Josh." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. "Drake & Josh" article has no mention of Sheepman, and no Ghits per Ohnoitsjamie. Tychocat 02:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Runcorn 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Khan

Article is very short, and lacks reasonable content. She is real (not made up), and there are some google hits, but it just isn't quite notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia - at least as of now. --NicAgent 22:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Tychocat 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes, fails WP:BIO. Runcorn 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NC Boy's High School Basket Ball Record, Beaufort High School

Original research (personal essay), etc. Prod and prod2 removed without comment by author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear delete. I suggest that the author creates an article for Beaufort High School into which some of this information can be injected. BlueValour 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR, even if contexted within an (oh no) article about a high school. Tychocat 00:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. OR, the record is not worthy of an article on its own. I agree with BlueValour that this could readily be one, maybe two, paragraphs in the Beaufort High School article...if rewritten and with third-party research. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD A7, Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. Viridae ^Talk 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy it certainly doesn't belong here, but I'd hate to see someone use all this work. --djrobgordon 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to fix it. Thanks for suggestions. The author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allenautry (talk • contribs) 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Vanity doktorb _words^deeds 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite unremarkable, indeed. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to comply with the suggestions, this article has now been edited and rewritten and sourced by statistics from the North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA) as a state and also a national record. I would have to disagree with the remark that that this was an "unremarkable" event. Sports authorities say the record will probably never be broken and it was quite remarkable. Thank you for your remarks and suggestions. --Allen Autry, contributor.
- Comment. The article appears even less worthy of inclusion now. All it discusses is the reunion and one paragraph of the NCHSAA press release. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reluctantly, as it's quite amusing.--Runcorn 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Saldaña

This appears to be a hoax. See talk page for nonexistent Google hit results. Judging by the article creator's response to my questions concerning the validity of the subject (that I'm "attempting to marginalize and disprove the existence of a local hero...that [my] problem lies with his Latino heritage, and [I] simply don't want his voice to be heard on the internet."), I'm quite convinced that there exits no verfiable & reliable proof of the subject's existence, let alone notability. Scientizzle 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The talk page is quite amusing and definitely worth a read. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the interests of attempting to suppress the truth. Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe a corollary to Godwin's Law is in order here... 'As requests for verification and sources for some non-notable person's biography increase, the probability that "moderation", "censorship" or "suppression of the truth" is used to defend the article's existance approaches 1.' :P Kimchi.sg 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only references on spanish-language TV to this guy's TV show is a translation of a 1944 movie, "The Hairy Ape". No listing of Mr. Saldana in either english or spanish, or in Boston for that matter. Tychocat 00:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --djrobgordon 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything either. --Runcorn 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as repost. Kimchi.sg 23:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lodden dritt

Didn't survive its initial delete debate; non-notable. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look it's back. Delete. BJK 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it with {{db-repost}} - if that fails, I say delete per first nomination. Hbdragon88 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Blue PC

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP Pboyd04 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Jusjih 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. also advertisement. Tychocat 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and spam. --djrobgordon 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Runcorn 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Richhoncho 21:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayef Aranki

Delete. Non-notable rapper; does not meet WP:BAND. Has not released any albums. Speedy delete tag was removed. ... discospinster _talk 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayef Aranki is currently recording an album to be released with DJ MDP's correllation with the rapper, Nitti. He is seeking mainstream exposure, a wikipedia site would help benefit those who wish to get to know Aranki. I apologize for the removal of the Speedy delete tag.

DJ MDP's Punjabi Mac mixtape has sold 50,000 copies within the Bay Area and Central region of California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullVila187 (talk • contribs)

Delete Wikipedia is not a promotion site. After he makes it big, then try again. Danny Lilithborne 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also original research, advertising by above unsigned commentary. Crystal-ballism as to whether becomes notable or not. A personal first - one Ghit, period. Tychocat 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come back when he has a record deal. --djrobgordon 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not sure about original research, but surely advertising.--Runcorn 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antipodean Trap Rule (Mornington Crescent game)

Mornington Crescent is a game which encourages the making up of rules on the spot. I beleive this to be one such rule. Artw 23:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. The game itself is on BBC, okay, but this rule appears to be something made up in school one day. Also OR. Tychocat 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable with no Google hits see [79]. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up... --djrobgordon 04:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mornington Crescent is notable, any spin-offs are not. MLA 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, since the idea of an article on a specific Mornington Crescent rule is actually pretty hilarious. Penelope D 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is a rule that's ever been used, I've never heard it.--Runcorn 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadin

Spam Artw 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam--Nick Y. 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, advertisement, delete it all. Tychocat 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. --djrobgordon 04:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Em-jay-es 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam, advertisement--Runcorn 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, spam per nom.--John Lake 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. -- Longhair 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). We have 4d-2k, but I will use my discretion here and call this a "keep". The argument presented that the article is original research is not substantiated. The article is a list of people with the surname Ornelas and is perfectly verifiable, and not just the random thoughts of some person. Disambiguation pages, like this one, to distinguish between people with the same surname are very common on Wikipedia, and are useful navigational aids for readers. In this case several of the people listed arguably pass WP:BIO guidelines and can have biographies (for instance, the page lists an elite football player in Norway, and a Portuguese olympic athlete), even though there is only one bluelink on the list currently. (If there are names on the list which don't deserve biographies, they may be culled from the list). I find the keep arguments presented by SilkTork convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ornelas

I'm not convinced that we need this dab page. Of its twenty or so links, all but one are red, and the one that isn't red is unlikely to ever garner an incoming link. Many of the listings have very questionable notability or ambiguity. We could blank it or redirect it, but I'd like links to this page to show up in red. --Smack (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Someone made up a random criteria and created a list. Listcruft, non notable list. Tychocat 01:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a page like this is done with a last name. However, I can't see any notability on any of those links. Yank sox 03:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yanksox. --djrobgordon 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is deleted then hundreds of other surname pages on Wikipedia must also be deleted in all fairness. --UniReb 11:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After being a longtime dedicated user and a large contributor to Wikipedia, I officially quit Wikipedia as of right now for personal reasons. I believe Wikipedia is an unfriendly and biased environment." --UniReb 12:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The principle of dab pages for surnames is well established. Deleting a surname dab page because it has just started and is currently red links is perhaps the wrong approach. Give the page some time to develop, then see if it needs deleting. If this page had been hanging around for a year I would agree that it's not working, but it has only just started and needs supporting and encouraging not deleting. SilkTork 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I's not OR but it's utterly pointless.--Runcorn 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arshia

Duplicate of Arshia Mahmoodi , which itself is a possible vanity page. Artw 23:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them both Duplication, non-notability, unverified, vanity Bwithh 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's an off chance the subject is notable, but even assuming that, it'd be better off to start from scratch. --djrobgordon 04:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote to Delete them both - poorly written; notability not apparent. Em-jay-es 06:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one for sure. I have started a separate debate for the other: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arshia Mahmoodi. Mango juice^talk 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one; I'm thinking about the other one.--Runcorn 19:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Intelligence Being

Looks like spam. Artw 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article Creator = Nostrumuva = Matthew Rodgers = Isomer Programming = Vanity. Software DOES get a lot of ghits, but mostly because it's been making the rounds of shareware sites. I don't see much if any chatter about it, just pages where it's available. Unfortunately, many of the hits are sentences like so "I'm not so sure about the arguments in favor of Artificial Intelligence being a panacea for mankind's ills", etc. - Richfife 00:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also advertisement, vanity article. Tychocat 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Em-jay-es 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity.--Runcorn 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asbuilt

Appears to be spam for linked company. Artw 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic, poorly written, only thing worth saving is the dictionary definition or some merged into Construction but not worth it since it would be a total rewrite of maybe one sentence. I agree it is also thinly veiled spam.--Nick Y. 00:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertisement. Spelling of title also goes straight to company websites (of various ilks) on Google, so it can't help but look like spamming. Tychocat 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an ad, exactly, but it certainly doesn't belong here. --djrobgordon 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as As-built into the article on Blueprint without the spam references. Mr Snrub 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. However, "as-built documentation" seems to be a big thing in the construction industry and worthy an article in itself, perhaps some of this article could be re-written, re-named and without the spam. --Richhoncho 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to add anything to the above.--Runcorn 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, copyvio. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McMorrow

This is my first time on these types of debates, however, I do not find any notability of this particular person, and I think it meets speedy deletion criteria. OMEN 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Reads like a cut and pasted press release for a non-notable musician. wikipediatrix 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, he seems notable enough to me. HORDE was a major, national tour, and the article cites sources. The real problem is that the whole thing is a copyvio of michaelmorrow.com [80]. I'd be happy to have an article on this artist, but this isn't it. --djrobgordon 04:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure about his notability, but it's a clear copyvio.--Runcorn 19:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Roach fansites

I personally find that fansites are 1. not notable, and 2. belong on the page that is relevant to the singer, if at all. If I am wrong, I will quickly rescind my nomination. Thanks! OMEN 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. crufty to the extreme. wikipediatrix 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 90% of fansites shouldn't even be in the external links sections of band articles. --djrobgordon 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please, the minute this AfD hits the 5 day mark, per nom & wikipediatrix --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Em-jay-es 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a repository of links. Oldelpaso 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fram 11:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; well put --Runcorn 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.